...what did I just step into?
Oh... did these guys set the mine just at the right spot... mm..mm!
Alahu Akbar!
ach,... just a discussion about how using realistic scientific knowledge and facts can make internal consistency and coherence of a particular setting be of a higher quality then those same subjects being designed only by non-experts just inventing stuff - supposedly without any scientific input at all. At All.
But we can make another loop.
As for tanks versus Scorpitron, you see, Vince, among many other things, claimed that the tank is a better design because it has tracks which are supposedly more difficult to hit and destroy then new Scorpitron legs - without any further caveats to the issue.
You see, he didnt like the new design of Scorpitron, says its not "logical", "realistic" and so on. While the old design of Scorpitron as a tank with a tail was GREAT!!!!
But he thinks new synthetic design for W2 is awesome. (done by the same artist, style, concept background, etc)
But he thinks x-com original campy silly enemies are better than "what science thinks aliens should be" -
without any additional info or facts or anything else to support such a statement. (those given dont -edit- lead to conclusions he came to. - correction).
And:
It makes absolutely no sense as far as realism is concerned, but it makes perfect "game design" sense. You need:
- visual variety
- distinctive appearance
- progressively harder challenges
- enemies with very different abilities
So, there you go, game design vs realism.
None of these are dependent on not being realistic at all, nor can you be completely un-realistic and create anything except some weird hallucinatory mish-mash of incomprehensible tripping stuff, nor the fact that you design silly non-realistic stuff guarantees it will work in the game.
In any sense at all.
All this, despite the fact that there are thousands and thousands of games and such "inventions" that get ridiculed all of the time. Whole settings that were thrown into depths of inanity because of such design by "game designers".
Despite the fact he often ridicules such inconsistent settings and even writes reviews about them.
Nor could any kind of realism damage these goals - especially since they themselves - are realistic.
- visual variety - realistic concept
- distinctive appearance - realistic concept
- progressively harder challenges - realistic logical concept
- enemies with very different abilities - realistic concept
VD, designing stuff without direct experts involved is possible. Design elements that get created like that sometimes can be overlooked if it just works inside the game setting and gameplay, sometimes its just campy-retro fun which is entertaining on its own (only in some cases though, its not a given at all), but - it most often makes the whole game silly, the setting inconsistent and therefore not - believable. Or just laughably stupid.
Games like ass effect can say they had scientist involved, but we all see that as a very ironic failure - and we know logic and common sense went out of that window long ago - and instead of making sense they ended up making one of the biggest nonsenses in history of gaming.
-edit- the very game is the proof that actual scientific involvement was ridiculously minimal. and delegated completely to the background as some textual descriptions of no consequence on the setting or gameplay.
(we do know for a very fact they just copy-pasted or blatantly stolen bits of other peoples works and just threw them together - just as they used free photos and other people illustrations as game assets etc)
And Thwacke statement about it says exactly that. btw.
The fact it is possible to design a game which is still good without direct scientific experts involved - does not mean all games should be designed like that.
Nor does it mean including experts in relevant fields will convert the fantastic setting into our reality and boredom.
You know this (although you dont accept this because of cognitive dissonance), because you designed AoD with a lot of help from experts (data that you studied), on the relevant subjects.
You read their work instead of talking to them but that is irrelevant.
And it only made your type of fantastic setting stronger, more consistent and coherent.
You went for things that make more sense in mechanics too - and things making sense happens only when they are designed realistically. (No, all things ever designed have a certain layer of realism embedded)
- hell, just look at eternity newest update and how they are struggling with concept of how armors should work in order to avoid making light and medium armors redundant.
The old problem of completely silly notion that heavy armor (represented through AC) makes you harder to hit, right?
Now, that kind of mechanics "did work" - we all played many games using that system and liked the games more or less. So why change it then? Was it not ridiculed and criticized all along? Both on its silliness and negative effects it had on the gameplay.
Is AoD take on the matter then worse?
Its not about making completely realistic setting - its about using enough of it to make the whole game more coherent, more believable and ultimately more interesting in every way.
It is also easier using realistic concepts or implementing "how things actually work" since we know what kind of consequences some particular realistic concept can have.
Unlike those stearing too much from it which produce unexpected delayed consequences and ultimately damage and devalue the whole setting and the gameplay.
/
oh, dont mind me folks... im just being craazzy. wooo!
-edit-
lets not forget that designing "things" in more realsitic manner brings in the feature of things being restricted, limited or costly - because its only reality that demands its not possible to weild two katanas, fly, shoot lasors out of your arse while shooting fireballs from machingeuns, while stealthing through an enemy castle and vooing a pretty princess with your smooth lines and insane charisma - before you ride off on a summoned magical dragon that shoots lightning from his arse.
COME ON! I actually used SOIL EROSION! In the piece FFS!
