Development Info InXile consults academics to create Wasteland authenticity

[almondblight]

Erm, no. Human evolution is solved since ca. 1980.
Next time, you might want to consult a scientist before you embarrass yourself like that again

Someone tell the Smithsonian:

"Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species."

I guess if I was incapable of Googling things it would seem like a fantasy ability only achievable by supermen to me too.

 

[Alex]

NEW Scorpitron is awesome.

I rather prefer the old one.

 

[Brayko]

The new Scorpitron is way fucking cooler and while we're being sciencey shits more believable and in theory less vulnerable to similar collapse than Imperial Walkers.

Considering the theoretical tech in the Star Wars universe, the fact that the empire would deploy Walkers as its trump card in an invasion force goes against every fucking principle of effective military operations. Just had to add that.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Biologically possible based on fucking what?

On biology for example.

Yeah, there are absolutely no unresolved issues of any kinds with the theory of evolution.

OK, leaving aside the MYSTARY! of the humans, how about those that we already know? Oh, right, it's not 100% foolproof, so it means you can't base anything on it.
Yeah, who needs scientist when we can just babble some incoherent, ignorant, pseudo-intellectual bullshit or OMG GOOGLED CUZ I"M SO CLEVER I CAN USE GOOGLE

If I had non-existant reading comprehension skills

They're certainly non-existant since you can't seem to be able to make the difference between asking a scientist how you put on a band-aid and how to design a plausible creature.

 

[DraQ]

Look, I really don't care about the consultant thing too much, but I just don't see why people are defending this so strongly. It's a silly, over-the-top setting, that's part of the charm.

It's only part of the charm when it's intended and fully comprehended by the authors, unless you mean a rather special kind of "charm".

I'm not saying I want a bunch of stupid theme park bullshit a la Fallout 3 with all its nonsense

Except you sort of do.

I meant that tracks are more realistic than legs.

And mouthparts are more realistic than?

 

[trais]

Erm, no. Human evolution is solved since ca. 1980.
Next time, you might want to consult a scientist before you embarrass yourself like that again

Someone tell the Smithsonian:

"Scientists do not all agree, however, about how these species are related or which ones simply died out. Many early human species -- certainly the majority of them – left no living descendants. Scientists also debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early humans, and about what factors influenced the evolution and extinction of each species."

I guess if I was incapable of Googling things it would seem like a fantasy ability only achievable by supermen to me too.

Lulz, you're the perfect example why sometimes simply googling stuff ain't enough to understand a subject. VD was talking about "which monkey humans evolved from" and you're talking about different subspecies of humans - completely different "level" of taxonomy. Seriously people - knowledge is in books, google can only give a vague direction in which books you might start looking for it.

Edit: some corrections - I'm repeating words like crazy today.

 

[Brayko]

Tracks do have the weakness of being useless in movement when you blow off the, well, track. Blowing off one leg would probably render the improved scorpitron still about 84% maneuverability.

knowledge is in books, google can only give a vague direction in which books you might start looking for it.

That's another thing to add upon. Reading factual data on Wikipedia is hardly inspiration for a creative scientific idea, and I believe these Thwacke guys' JOBS are to inspire creativity with their knowledge of science.

 

[FeelTheRads]

why sometimes simply googling stuff ain't enough

You just don't know how to use it, man. Real smart men get all they need from Google so I guess you're just dumb.

Also, VD, since you don't believe in biology, how about robotics? How about physics? Do you think robotics is useful to be able to design a physically possible robot? Or do you think we don't know enough?
When answering, please note:
- again, not referring specifically to Wasteland, so spare me the "BUT IT"S COOL CUZ IT"S WACKY"
- also spare me the "what does it bring to the table" bullshit, because you can ask that question about anything

 

[almondblight]

Lulz, you're the perfect example why sometimes simply googling stuff ain't enough to understand a subject. VD was talking about "which monkey humans evolved from" and you're talking about different subspecies of humans - completely different "level" of taxonomy. Seriously people - knowledge is in books, google can only give a vague direction in which books you might start looking for it.

Don't even remember what you said? VD said: "We don't even know how exactly we evolved or what monkeys we've evolved from (see the missing link in human evolution) and why."

Your response?
"Erm, no. Human evolution is solved since ca. 1980.
Next time, you might want to consult a scientist before you embarrass yourself like that again "

So yes, if you cut out the part where VD says "We don't even know exactly we evolved" or the part where he says "and why" and you cut out your entire response ("Human evolution is solved ca. 1980") it'd be different. But as it stands, all your showing is "when I make a fool of myself, selectively quote and hope no one else notices what was actually said."

 

[trais]

Lulz, you're the perfect example why sometimes simply googling stuff ain't enough to understand a subject. VD was talking about "which monkey humans evolved from" and you're talking about different subspecies of humans - completely different "level" of taxonomy. Seriously people - knowledge is in books, google can only give a vague direction in which books you might start looking for it.

Don't even remember what you said? VD said: "We don't even know how exactly we evolved or what monkeys we've evolved from (see the missing link in human evolution) and why."

Your response?
"Erm, no. Human evolution is solved since ca. 1980.
Next time, you might want to consult a scientist before you embarrass yourself like that again "

So yes, if you cut out the part where VD says "We don't even know exactly we evolved" or the part where he says "and why" and you cut out your entire response ("Human evolution is solved ca. 1980") you'd have a point. But as it stands, all your showing is "when I make a fool of myself, selectively quote and hope no one else notices what was actually said."

Again, it seems like you've got no idea what are you talking about. Sure, if by "exactly" you mean something like this: "see this bones right there? that's my grand-grand-grand-...-grandfather and that femur over there belonged to my grand-grand-grand-...-grandmother who were first humans" then we obviously can't do that. But that's not the point.

Let's start from the beginning then.
Many moons ago, when the theory of evolution was proposed, people were like "that's interesting idea, but what about humans, did we evolved too?". And the early evolutionists answered: "well, apes are kinda similar to us, there must be some connection". But people didn't want to believe that, so that connection (actually connection between ancestors of humans and apes) was called "missing link". It was "missing" because nobody at that time could find any bones of intermediate specimen. But since then, we found many of such fossils e.g. Lucy, or that whole Cro-Magnon stuff that suggested that evolutionists were right. Bit it was only bones, most not even complete skeletons, so there were still plenty of speculations. And then came 1980s - we got new fancy tools, new disciplines like molecular biology and with them we found evidence that left no room for doubt anymore. Therefore, I called that case "solved".

And you're talking about completely unrelated stuff - about our cousins from genus homo. With some of them we intermixed (like Neandertals, tho' not much) with some we didn't. But we didn't evolved from them, as they were often living concurrently to early homo sapiens and therefore are not relevant for this discussion.

Which again, proves the point that googling is often not enough, you need to study a subject somewhat deeply unless you want risk fucking things up royally and looking like a dumbass.

 

[FeelTheRads]

almondblight, the tl;dr version for you:

If you still talk about the "missing link" today, you're obviously a Google kid (as in, skim the first Google result and call it knowledge).
The sad thing is that you're so deep into your ignorance that you actually consider yourself smart for using Google to find out shit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And then came 1980s - we got new fancy tools, new disciplines like molecular biology and with them we found evidence that left no room for doubt anymore. Therefore, I called that case "solved".

Room for what doubt? For the the fact that man evolved or for the knowledge of how exactly it happened and what triggered it?

If it's the latter, then the case is far from solved. We get new discoveries and new theories almost every year. Here is one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Dated 2009, not 1980, as you can see. If it's the former, then nobody denied it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Also, VD, since you don't believe in biology...

- also spare me the "what does it bring to the table" bullshit, because you can ask that question about anything

You should be able to ask questions about anything, and you should ask this particular question about each and every feature. I guess what you mean is that this question isn't easy to answer when asked about science consultants for a "wacky" PA game and now you're trying to suggest that this question is impossible to answer, period. Sadly, you're mistaken.

This question is very easy to answer, when asked about perspective, combat mode, party, stats, dialogue system, moral choices, description style, and even Avellone's participation.

 

[almondblight]

And you're talking about completely unrelated stuff - about our cousins from genus homo. With some of them we intermixed (like Neandertals, tho' not much) with some we didn't. But we didn't evolved from them, as they were often living concurrently to early homo sapiens and therefore are not relevant for this discussion.

So, yeah, you don't know what you're talking about at all. Cute. Scientists still haven't agreed whether or not neanderthals should be classified as homo sapiens, A. sediba was found just a few years ago, people are still unsure how h ergaster fits in, scientiests still aren't sure about the origins of walking upright (with recent discoveries regarding A. ramidus possibly shedding some light). So no, human evolution is not "solved."

Which again, proves the point that googling going by memory is often not enough, you need to study a subject somewhat deeply do a cursory google search unless you want risk fucking things up royally and looking like a dumbass.

Fixed.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Tracks do have the weakness of being useless in movement when you blow off the, well, track. Blowing off one leg would probably render the improved scorpitron still about 84% maneuverability.

Tracks are much harder to hit and damage than leg joints (especially with small gun fire).

 

[almondblight]

If it's the latter, then the case is far from solved. We get new discoveries and new theories almost every year. Here is one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Well, National Geographic is "obviously a Google kid" that ends up "fucking things up royally and looking like a dumbass." Luminaries like FeelTheRads and trais should go over and school them about anthropology.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Also, VD, since you don't believe in biology...

Ah, well, you see, would it have been better if I just called it as your usual flip-flopping? Because when I'm telling you about biologically possible alien-life your answer was that we don't have the exact answer for human evolution like that invalidates the whole concept of evolution.

So which is it? Flip-flopping or ignorance?

 

[almondblight]

Because when I'm telling you about biologically possible alien-life...

Thwacke!: "In Bioware's Mass Effect (ME), each alien species takes a different path to becoming sapient species capable of language, culture, and space travel from their native planets. Naturally, this path is highly affected by the environment that the species inhabits. Evolutionary biology plays an important role in achieving immersion in the 'believable' ME galaxy. With an appreciation of these details, we explore the ways by which each race in ME borrows evolutionary strategies from earth-bound species to create their wildlife, planets, and intelligent aliens."

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Oh.

Ok, cool.

So you guys have gone full retard. Awesome. At least there's no saying things are left half-assed here.

 

[Moribund]

Tracks are much harder to hit and damage than leg joints (especially with small gun fire).

Nope, try wikipedia. And how will it repair the tracks, which will get damaged simply from normal use.

almondblight, the tl;dr version for you:

If you still talk about the "missing link" today, you're obviously a Google kid (as in, skim the first Google result and call it knowledge).
The sad thing is that you're so deep into your ignorance that you actually consider yourself smart for using Google to find out shit.

Well, they recently proved out of africa theory is all utter crap. That means they have had about zero real idea what really happened until now, and that they still probably have very little real idea.

So I don't know how anyone can say they know exactly anything with ANY archaeology let alone all of human evolution. It's just impossible to know things like that in perfect detail from a dozen skeletal remains and it's puzzling to think anyone even suggested it.

 

[trais]

And then came 1980s - we got new fancy tools, new disciplines like molecular biology and with them we found evidence that left no room for doubt anymore. Therefore, I called that case "solved".

Room for what doubt? For the the fact that man evolved or for the knowledge of how exactly it happened and what triggered it?

If it's the latter, then the case is far from solved. We get new discoveries and new theories almost every year. Here is one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Dated 2009, not 1980, as you can see. If it's the former, then nobody denied it.

It's cool finding because it's earliest "missing link" specimen found, and but it doesn't change any paradigms. Some some of the claims in that article are kinda o_O like: "popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link". If NG editors are looking for a scientific knowledge in Darwin books then I don't think they're looking in the right place. Science has moved on and theory of evolution was updated many times since then, and I'm sure it will be still updated many times in the future. But let's take a look at what do the rest of the article says:

Her big toe, for instance, splays out from her foot like an ape's, the better to grasp tree limbs. Unlike a chimpanzee foot, however, Ardipithecus's contains a special small bone inside a tendon, passed down from more primitive ancestors, that keeps the divergent toe more rigid. Combined with modifications to the other toes, the bone would have helped Ardi walk bipedally on the ground, though less efficiently than later hominids like Lucy. The bone was lost in the lineages of chimps and gorillas.

According to the researchers, the pelvis shows a similar mosaic of traits. The large flaring bones of the upper pelvis were positioned so that Ardi could walk on two legs without lurching from side to side like a chimp. But the lower pelvis was built like an ape's, to accommodate huge hind limb muscles used in climbing.

Even in the trees, Ardi was nothing like a modern ape, the researchers say.

Modern chimps and gorillas have evolved limb anatomy specialized to climbing vertically up tree trunks, hanging and swinging from branches, and knuckle-walking on the ground.

While these behaviors require very rigid wrist bones, for instance, the wrists and finger joints of Ardipithecus were highly flexible. As a result Ardi would have walked on her palms as she moved about in the trees—more like some primitive fossil apes than like chimps and gorillas.
"What Ardi tells us is there was this vast intermediate stage in our evolution that nobody knew about," said Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio, who analyzed Ardi's bones below the neck. "It changes everything."

So basically, humans evolved from species that were transitioning from arboreal to bipedal-on-the-ground type of locomotion. That's the new shit? Really?
Still, not everyone agrees that's the case:

Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine," Jungers said. "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?

And then article points out "feminized" teeth and the theory that it places them as pair-bonding (opposed to tournament species) and that they had to walk on the ground to have free hands to carry food for their mates. Which is fine, I like that, but it's far from being a proof.
And the we have this:

Did primitive Ardipithecus undergo some accelerated change in the 200,000 years between it and Australopithecus—and emerge as the ancestor of all later hominids? Or was Ardipithecus a relict species, carrying its quaint mosaic of primitive and advanced traits with it into extinction?

Study co-leader White sees nothing about the skeleton "that would exclude it from ancestral status." But he said more fossils would be needed to fully resolve the issue.

So, scientists still don't know whether or not that species is our ancestors. But the NG gave that article headline "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found". I'm confused, because I'd expect that kind of crap from Daily Mail, not National Geographic Decline of NG?

Anyway, back to the topic:

Room for what doubt? For the the fact that man evolved or for the knowledge of how exactly it happened and what triggered it?

The path of human evolution. Sure, we don't know every detail and intermediate species (and probably never will), but we know how exactly we are related to modern apes (and monkeys as you call them), we can ballpark when our species split from common ancestors. Do we know what triggered evolution? Well, easy answer is: same thing that triggers evolution everywhere and anywhere: changes in the environment. But I don't know details. You'd need to consult a scientist for that.

As of theory of evolution itself, we still discover new things like epigenetics (Lamarck's big comeback!), so we will discover more things about "how" and "why" things happen. But we already have enough fossil and DNA evidence to give pretty good answers to question about "what" has happened. We're not gonna suddenly find out that we have marsupials in our ancestor line. No way. Sure, we might discover some details like new species that might related to us and became extinct in 200 000 years since it's differentiation. But really, that's details if we're gonna look in scale of millions of years since the beginnings of life (and therefore beginnings of evolution).

 

[trais]

And you're talking about completely unrelated stuff - about our cousins from genus homo. With some of them we intermixed (like Neandertals, tho' not much) with some we didn't. But we didn't evolved from them, as they were often living concurrently to early homo sapiens and therefore are not relevant for this discussion.

So, yeah, you don't know what you're talking about at all. Cute. Scientists still haven't agreed whether or not neanderthals should be classified as homo sapiens, A. sediba was found just a few years ago, people are still unsure how h ergaster fits in, scientiests still aren't sure about the origins of walking upright (with recent discoveries regarding A. ramidus possibly shedding some light). So no, human evolution is not "solved."

Dude, listen. Difference between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens it's like a difference between gray wolf and jackal. Between Australopithecus sediba and Homo sapiens it would be like between gray wolf and fox.
Yes, they are different. Yes, it's very interesting what caused those differences and how that happened on molecular level or whatever. But do you seriously think that we need to fucking marvel at how those species fit together? Because I think it's pretty straightforward.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Oh, and this.

This question is very easy to answer, when asked about perspective, combat mode, party, stats, dialogue system, moral choices, description style, and even Avellone's participation.

The fuck. Are you actually comparing using scientific knowledge for worldbuilding with combat mode? Or stats?
And what the fuck is description style? Care to be more vague?
Avellone's participation? What answer can the question "what does Avellone's participation bring to the table" have? The only reasonable answer is "i think his writing is cool, dude".
And what I meant when I said that you can ask this question about anything, is that well, you can. For example, what do elves bring to the table? What's that? They help build up a high fantasy world?
Maybe scientific knowledge helps build up a realistic word? Or add some of that"human interest and a semblance of truth" that is not limited to HEY PEOPLE WALK ON TWO LEGS? Obviously it's not suitable for all games or settings, but certainly "perspective, combat mode" and whatever the fuck other random game elements you want to enumerate are not suitable for all game types.
Oh, right, but nobody cares about it while everybody cares about Avellone.

So I don't know how anyone can say they know exactly anything with ANY archaeology let alone all of human evolution. It's just impossible to know things like that in perfect detail from a dozen skeletal remains and it's puzzling to think anyone even suggested it.

And do you think that humans are the only species with "missing links"? Fucking Christ, these Google kids. So what, some species evolved, but others with "missing links" have just magically popped into existence in their current form? Is this fucking Sunday school?
By the way, last news I have about the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates is that that it's not sure what creatures were in between. This must mean that vertebrates have just magically appeared.

Let me put it another way for you, for VD and for others who thing biology is magic: NO, we don't know every fucking step evolution took, but we know how it works, how life adapts, the shapes it can take, what works and what not.
Based on that biologically possible creatures can be designed, which is where this all this argument started from, but VD decided to go full retard and with his brilliant "but we don't know how humans are made so biology is wrong!" retort.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Avellone's participation? What answer can the question "what does Avellone's participation bring to the table" have? The only reasonable answer is "i think his writing is cool, dude".

The only? How about he's more knowledgeable than Fargo at this point when it comes to dialogue design, reactivity, choices, etc? He brings to the table his expertise which will prevent Fargo and his team from making mistakes that could be avoided.

For example, what do elves bring to the table? What's that? They help build up a high fantasy world?

They bring in a different race with different bonuses, penalties, and abilities, and perspective. Essentially, they bring variety. They don't have to be called elves, of course, but it's just easier.

Maybe scientific knowledge helps build up a realistic word?

Do you need scientific knowledge to build up a realistic world? After all, we aren't talking about a simulation here, but a world that makes sense.

Now, if it was a proper survival RPG, such knowledge would be necessary, but neither Wasteland 2 nor 99.9% of other RPGs are such games.

And do you think that humans are the only species with "missing links"? Fucking Christ, these Google kids. So what, some species evolved, but others with "missing links" have just magically popped into existence in their current form? Is this fucking Sunday school?

When people point out that there is much we still don't know about evolution and human bodies, it doesn't mean that they are denying evolution and suggest that we just popped into existence.

By the way, last news I have about the evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates is that that it's not sure what creatures were in between. This must mean that vertebrates have just magically appeared.

Right. 'cause this is what we're talking about here.

Let me put it another way for you, for VD and for others who thing biology is magic: NO, we don't know every fucking step evolution took, but we know...

... exactly what alien life forms will look like. We just do.

Based on that biologically possible creatures can be designed, which is where this all this argument started from, but VD decided to go full retard and with his brilliant "but we don't know how humans are made so biology is wrong!" retort.

For the record:
- I've never denied or doubted the theory of evolution;
- I've never said a word about biology (nor do I doubt it);

Carry on.

 

[Johannes]

More Vault-Co consultation, less scienmagistics consultation.