Development Info Putting the science back in Wasteland 2's science fiction

[l3loodAngel]

1. You do realize you're dismissing any kind of input science might have in any game by using an example for one game? Logical fallacies GOGO! 2. I also assume you just know that no other game (save for Outpost which obviously failed because of science LOL) had ever had any input from science?

1. Because they showed the worst example they had and because there are so many good games with input from scientists (sarcasm).
2. Inspired by science is a not same thing as actually created by it?

 

[Moribund]

No, it doesnt nail it.

It nails it only for complete morons who are incapable of thinking in anything but binary extremes.
There is no "simulation" versus fantasy argument at all. Nobody called for complete realism, nobody suggested it, nobody wanted it, let alone any kind of motherfucking simulation.
Its only that VD and a few other idiots invented that - because it is an angle that supports their "argument". A strawman.

There are only morons, coming up with moronic concepts the second they try to create an example of what they think is some kind of "fantasy" - although it is nothing but realistic concepts simply rearranged into moronic combinations.
Which then get accepted by morons because of simple emotional blackmail of "not having fun" if these idiotic concepts are not accepted at face value.

What I said boils down to "I don't think that hiring scientists is a good idea, here is why..."

Aha...sure. Want me to quote several pearls of wisdom from previous thread or is the one about how scientists are going to take over the design and turn the game into realistic simulation enough?

Well, he did totally crush that straw man, though. I give him credit for that but I have no idea where it came from except the magical whimsy of his mind.

Now blood ange is tanking its remains and setting it on fire. Too bad it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[hiver]

@VD


fuck... this is precisely your fucking problem here.

You are capable of thinking about this only in binary extremes. For you its either complete realism or complete fantasy.
Therefore your logic fails epically.
(not to mention - AGAIN, how many realistic concepts your own game has and yet by some miracle - it isnt a motherfucking realistic simulation)

- nobody even wanted to make any god damn realistic flora or fauna! - GET THIS GODAMN FACT STRAIGHT.
- yeah, your position is totally deniable - to anyone sane.
- not only it is possible but it is unavoidable. I mean, if youre talking about realistic assumptions based on facts and knowledge we have.
- how can you even claim that something as stupid as saying that realistic flora and fauna are boring - even needs some special evidence to be proven wrong?It is laughably wrong just by itself!

Every single idea, concept, creature, weapon, location, or really...anything else you can find in any game ever made - is BASED OR INSPIRED BY REALITY.

THERE IS NO FANTASTIC CONCEPTS THAT ARE NOT.

i know, i know... this must seem very funny to read - but - name me one completely unrealistic concept or idea or a creature concept from any game ever made - that isnt based on reality.

"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."

First of all this isnt an answer to what i said. The answer to that is that you actually argued these scientist will take over the design of the game - literally.

Second - THERE IS NO - JUST TWO POSSIBILITIES.
The fact that you can only see two doesnt NOT MEAN there are only those two - AT ALL.

Third - the scientists are not there to invent giant crabs. Thats just one very simple and straightforward idea - that designers themselves accepted. Because it fits with that whacky science feel of Wasteland setting.
The scientists role is not to come up with whole concepts for creatures in the game - their role is to provide info to designers - who then will use it to create concepts. Therefore - the scientists do not design the game - developers do.

this latest interview about this provides other examples of how this thing works -

"Each one of the writers on Wasteland 2 has benefited from their work in either being inspired or finding some real world facts to help them put their ideas into a stronger basis," Fargo told Ars. "Colin McComb garnered quite a bit of information on poisons, explosives, and water issues to help shape his map for example.

- YOU SEE? the designers take the info and then go and design the bloody game!

Fargo says players definitely shouldn't worry on that score. "We would never let the realism trump the fun factor of the gameplay as our goal is to make a game a not a simulator or learning game," he said. "We are focused on the experience over the realism and the two can work hand in hand. The sensibilities of our Wasteland world are well documented in the vision document that we posted so the input of Thwacke does not affect the world feel in a negative way." Alvarado agrees wholeheartedly. "I know some people are saying, 'Oh, I don't want Wasteland 2 to be scientifically accurate or realistic, because that would ruin such an off the wall game,' we're not doing that at all. ... We know that the game would be pretty boring if it had to be 100 percent realistic.

Well, we can't all be as smart as you, hiver, can we?

Apparently not.
Although, for your information - personally, i think im just smart enough to know how little i know. Or put in different way, im smart enough to realize how stupid i am.

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

True today as it was 2,500 motherfucking years ago. Hooray for fucking human civilization and its motherfucking progress.

 

[Vault Dweller]

- I've never studied evolutionary biology, so *maybe* it's possible to develop "really cool, interesting creatures" by introducing some assumptions into the model.

It's possible by knowing shit (yeah, shit that you can Google afterwards and claim that you knew it too) that others don't and that can be used into creating those creatures. Again, obviously not absolutely necessary (especially if you're not interested in scientific accuracy) but to claim that they're useless is well.. fucking retarded.

Unlike you, I don't know for sure that it's possible because there is zero evidence supporting it. Apparently, doubting something simply because no evidence exists is fucking retarded, while believing out of blind faith is very scientific.

Live and learn, eh?

Instead we got giant crabs, which is as generic as it gets.

You do realize you're dismissing any kind of input science might have in any game by using an example for one game?

By using the only available example (for WL2).

Logical fallacies GOGO! I also assume you just know that no other game (save for Outpost which obviously failed because of science LOL) had ever had any input from science? Oh, I see, here's how it works: Tons of games have shit creatures and shit quests, so game designers are all useless and can't do any good.

I've explained my thoughts on science! in games many, many times. They boil down to a simple fact: games' creatures do not require scientific accuracy/realism/whatever. They aren't creatures, they are cool blobs of loot, XP, and hp. To make a creature interesting you need a cool visual design (a task that any competent artist can handle with ease), distinctive and interesting attacks and special abilities that fit the combat system and the PC's abilities (a task that should be handled by designers and programmers). I simply don't see what scientists can bring to the table that's actually needed and would improve any aspect of a game.

The single WL2 example is telling because out of all the allegedly vast possibilities of awesome, the outcome was a giant crab (an unrealistic creature because radiation doesn't make them bigger) with an unrealistic but visually cool shell. The only thing that scientists added there is the discharge radiation thing which doesn't make any fucking sense, which was pointed out already. Maybe when an NPC says something like "Did you see them giant fuckers wearing cars? The dropped their own shells to discharge radiation, how 'bout that?", you will shed tears of joy and feel that the game's just got 10 times better, but I doubt that it will have the same effect on everyone.

 

[MRY]

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

True today as it was 2,500 motherfucking years ago. Hooray for fucking human civilization and its motherfucking progress.

I can't believe this discussion is still going on, but this line -- as Pacino says -- pulled me back in. Do you really think that Socrates would think that the best way to design a science fiction setting would be to consult a bunch of purported experts? I mean, you do realize that the point of that quote is that you should not defer to purported experts because they don't understand the limits of their knowledge, right?

 

[hiver]

No moron, it does not mean that.
In this case... it motherfucking means that you should not presume - so retardedly - what Socrates would think about video game design. You fucking imbecile.

 

[Vault Dweller]

not to mention - AGAIN, how many realistic concepts your own game has and yet by some miracle - it isnt a motherfucking realistic simulation

And it didn't require any consultants.

Every single idea, concept, creature, weapon, location, or really...anything else you can find in any game ever made - is BASED OR INSPIRED BY REALITY.

And 95% of these "concepts, creatures, and really... anything" were done without any input from specialists in biology, history, religion, magic, etc. That's my point. Is it really that hard to understand?

Third - the scientists are not there to invent giant crabs. Thats just one very simple and straightforward idea - that designers themselves accepted. Because it fits with that whacky science feel of Wasteland setting.
...
The scientists role is not to come up with whole concepts for creatures in the game - their role is to provide info to designers - who then will use it to create concepts. Therefore - the scientists do not design the game - developers do.

My mind is blown by these revelations. I'll never look at games the same way as before.

I understand that scientists don't do the design. I understand what their role is. My point is that if their input results in giant crabs, is their involvement really necessary?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I can't believe this discussion is still going on...

The only game in town.

 

[Haba]

Admit it, you're just trying to distract us from making fun of your teleporting quests again.

 

[almondblight]

Too bad that like always with "Google-fu" you're only able to scratch the surface and you don't actually understand anything about what you're reading.

Yeah man, you weren't using that video as an example of creatures created by scientists at all. Oh wait...

either the scientists would go with scientifically realistic flora and fauna, which would be boring,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLfNe12BKE

Fucking boring man. Where is that robot with spinning knives? That's SO exciting.

Had the scientists' involvement resulted in really cool, interesting creatures

You would have said that you could have come up with them by googling shit.
Maybe you'd like to actually watch that documentary I linked you to in one of the previous pages? You know that 1 and a half hour long documentary that you dismissed after 7 minutes with "seriously?".

Obviously they're not an absolute necessity if you have "good designers", but you seem to think that good designers are some kind of magical creatures that just pop into existence with all their knowledge or that good design=googling shit, and if their work is based on their training (Sandy Petersen) you just simply dismiss it because fuck.

Is reading that hard?

As I said a couple pages back, a scientist can be a good designer that uses their background to enhance a game. The same can be true of a former gang member, soldier, electrician, office worker, classic scifi fans, etc. What's important is that they are good designers, first and foremost. If a good designer that's a scientist/gang member/expert on 18th century literature is capable of pulling using said knowledge to enhance the game, that's great - it doesn't mean that games need to hire scientists/gang members/experts on 18th century literature.

 

[almondblight]

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

True today as it was 2,500 motherfucking years ago. Hooray for fucking human civilization and its motherfucking progress.

Good point. I'm glad we have people like you around that openly admit that they might be wrong.

 

[hiver]

not to mention - AGAIN, how many realistic concepts your own game has and yet by some miracle - it isnt a motherfucking realistic simulation

And it didn't require any consultants.

Every single idea, concept, creature, weapon, location, or really...anything else you can find in any game ever made - is BASED OR INSPIRED BY REALITY.

And 95% of these "concepts, creatures, and really... anything" were done without any input from specialists in biology, history, religion, magic, etc. That's my point. Is it really that hard to understand?

No, its perfectly understandable - the problem is that you do not understand that your starting premises are simply wrong and not actually supported by anything but your weird prejudice.
Therefore any further conclusions you make are wrong. Thats how logic, sanity and reason work.

let me explain - again.

Your game didnt require any specialist consultants - it required realism. As a foundation of the setting.
You got it by reading (i.e studying) the relevant materials - who are all compiled by specialists in each relevant field.
(whether some article on wiki was written by an amateur is not important - he got his info from historians and archeologists - professional specialists in the field. If you got some of the info from the books - the same applies. If you got some of the info from movies - the same applies.)

Therefore - we can conclude that realism is not a bad thing to be avoided when creating any kind of fiction. Just by itself.
RIGHT?
In fact it is unavoidable because people are not capable of creating fantastic unreal concepts without any relevance or connection to reality.
(even bloody Picasso based all his works on reality, and Salvador Dally did too)

Your second quote here merely confirms this starting premise.

THEREFORE - it cannot be argued that input from scientists and specialists in the relevant fields is wrong in any way. By itself.
BECAUSE - science itself is basically just - discovery of reality.

I understand that scientists don't do the design. I understand what their role is.

Well... it certainly didnt seem so just a few posts ago... oh..wait.. ->

My point is that if their input results in giant crabs, is their involvement really necessary?

But their bloody input is not there just to come up with the idea of giant crabs...man....read the bloody interview!

Thats just one simple, quick example to elucidate what and how they (inXile and Thwacke) go about this whole deal.
By the time they are done there will be hundreds if not thousands of different examples to criticize or praise.
GOD DAMN IT!


Besides that... this simpleton doomsaying logic, so bloody overdone on teh codex and internet in general is really tiresome.
All you do is play the role of a doomsayer - you scream how everything will turn bad and then you latch onto anything that conforms with this and simply ignore everything that doesnt.
Its stupid, blatant, childish, painfully obvious and entirely boring ENORMOUS CLICHE.

Synonyms: complainer, crepehanger, cynic, defeatist, depreciator, downer, gloomy, killjoy, misanthrope, party pooper, prophet of doom, sourpuss, wet blanket, worrier, worrywart


Now, let me ask you... although...fucking hell... why do i even try...

If the involvement of scientists doesnt bring anything bad to the design of the game just by itself, if it doesnt cost anything worth worrying about, if it enables the designers to get loads of data and info really quickly on all relevant scientific facts (quicker than searching yourself over the internet - and speed being the necessity to keep to development time InXile wants to achieve) - and since we NOW KNOW that all games and all fiction and in bloody fact all art of any kind is based on reality, and if we have numerous and numerous examples of games that are completely idiotic which didnt pay much attention to reality or science but went rather for "fun" factor ---


WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HAVING SOME SCIENTISTS AS CONSULTANTS? WHY THE FUCK WOULD IT BE UNNECESSARY?


Now... if you want to discuss eventual implementation and eventual design of the game - you will first need to give me a spin on that time machine youre using.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Third - the scientists are not there to invent giant crabs. Thats just one very simple and straightforward idea - that designers themselves accepted. Because it fits with that whacky science feel of Wasteland setting.
...
The scientists role is not to come up with whole concepts for creatures in the game - their role is to provide info to designers - who then will use it to create concepts. Therefore - the scientists do not design the game - developers do.

My mind is blown by these revelations. I'll never look at games the same way as before.

I understand that scientists don't do the design. I understand what their role is. My point is that if their input results in giant crabs, is their involvement really necessary?

You are crushing him with a smile, admit it. That would be ok, but he is a little bit confused.

 

[Wavinator]

Too bad that like always with "Google-fu" you're only able to scratch the surface and you don't actually understand anything about what you're reading.

For example:

Interestingly, the film focuses on several aspects which were mere background elements in Expedition. In one instance, the "electrical discharge mushrooms" which appeared as incidental in one painting are given significant screen time as well as a fairly detailed ecology. Ditto for gourd trees, rooty structures that are common but unexplained in Expedition but extensively investigated in Alien Planet as the first life the probes come across.

...

And something else: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelia_and_Blue_Moon

These examples are irrelevant. The world of the Wasteland is based on Earth. There's a big difference between the possibility space that arises from a world with millions of years of unique evolutionary history and our own. The wow factor of a hard SF environment like Darwin or Blue Planet or Aurelia and Blue Moon arises from the fact that the environment is unknown and surprising, and gains increased credibility among those with some scientific literacy because it's based in fact (this is, unfortunately, a small audience by the way compared to those who accept pure or partial fantasy).

I imagine a realistic post apocalyptic world could richly benefit from scientific accuracy, but I didn't think that was what Wasteland was.

 

[HobGoblin42]

FOR SCIENCE !

 

[Wavinator]

Therefore - we can conclude that realism is not a bad thing to be avoided when creating any kind of fiction. Just by itself.
RIGHT?

Wrong. If realism collides with and occludes the mythology of the setting it can harm the fiction and should be avoided. If it cuts out entire possibilities that would enhance the fantasy and fantasy is more important than fidelity for the impact of the creation then it has no place other than to ground the audience in the common language of a shared experience.

THEREFORE - it cannot be argued that input from scientists and specialists in the relevant fields is wrong in any way. By itself.
BECAUSE - science itself is basically just - discovery of reality.

It's pointless if their input imposes constraints that wouldn't exist without them. Take an example from hard science fiction: Current trends in computation suggest that a future of humans exploring strange new worlds (or doing much of anything) is a highly improbable colonization/cowboy fantasy. But that plausible projected reality does violence to the mythology of most futuristic fiction. The affairs of robots and even post-biological humans simply don't carry nearly as much passionate concern for us as flesh and blood people.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HAVING SOME SCIENTISTS AS CONSULTANTS? WHY THE FUCK WOULD IT BE UNNECESSARY?

You correctly describe science as a process for uncovering reality. Consultants would seem to be pointless in the domain where that reality is so well uncovered and understood as to be relatively common knowledge (e.g, a mostly modern take on Earth). They would be invaluable if the aim of the game were realistic depiction of a post-apocalyptic world (something along the lines of, say, Life After People). Moreover they seem to be even more pointless if they would constrain all the cool, possible things you could get from a coherently designed fantasy.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Apparently, doubting something simply because no evidence exists

Yes, if you ignore it (or reduce it to "I COULD HAVE GOOGLED THAT") then it doesn't exist. Got it.

Is reading that hard?

It's hard reading shit, yes. So it's good if those designers can use their training but if that training is missing it's useless to ask for advice from someone with that training? Great mentality. And then cry about boring settings, enemies and quests.

You are crushing him with a smile, admit it. That would be ok, but he is a little bit confused.

The fuck? Is this VD's personal cumslurper? VD's Roguey?

These examples are irrelevant. The world of the Wasteland is based on Earth

This stopped being solely about W2 a long time ago, despite VD trying to spin it again.

 

[hiver]

Therefore - we can conclude that realism is not a bad thing to be avoided when creating any kind of fiction. Just by itself.
RIGHT?

Wrong. If realism collides with and occludes the mythology of the setting it can harm the fiction and should be avoided. If it cuts out entire possibilities that would enhance the fantasy and fantasy is more important than fidelity for the impact of the creation then it has no place other than to ground the audience in the common language of a shared experience.

If realism collides with and occludes

This is a problem of eventual implementation. VD has been taking you on voyages into the future eh?

If it cuts out entire possibilities

Why would it? after all.... I AM NOT FUCKING ARGUING ANYTHING SHOULD BE COMPLETELY REALISTIC!

the fantasy and fantasy is more important than fidelity

Not if its stupid and affects the internal coherence and consistency of any given setting. feel free to go any enjoy ass effect, FO3, or dragon Age2.
Also - IM NOT FUCKING ARGUING FOR COMPLETE REALISTIC MOTHERFUCKING FIDELITY!!!
Nobody is.

Its a strawman VD and the rest of you keep thinking about and throwing in because you are not capable of thinking in anything more than simpleton binary extremes.

It's pointless if their input imposes constraints that wouldn't exist without them.

Again - thats a problem of eventual future implementation of any specific detail you might be thinking about.

Also - we bloody well know for a fucking FACT that inXile designers simply wont use or accept anything that impose constraints on wasteland setting.
And we also know that is not what Thwacke guys are attempting to do - at all.

These are the FACTS.

Take an example from hard science fiction: Current trends in computation suggest that a future of humans exploring strange new worlds (or doing much of anything) is a highly improbable colonization/cowboy fantasy.

No it doesnt. Idiot.

We will be on both Moon and Mars in the next 20 years.

As for interstellar travel... current science merely claims it will be very difficult to do with current technology (to put it very simply) not - highly improbable - which is something you just invented. I.e. - a lie.
Science does not claim any motherfucking thing is true - until that can be proven and verified. Thats what makes it a science.

But that plausible projected reality does violence to the mythology of most futuristic fiction.

No it doesnt - because it doesnt. I mean - your fucking starting premise is not true.

The affairs of robots and even post-biological humans simply don't carry nearly as much passionate concern for us as flesh and blood people.

Err... what?

Consultants would seem to be pointless in the domain where that reality is so well uncovered and understood as to be relatively common knowledge (e.g, a mostly modern take on Earth).

What is this "modern take on Earth"? What does it encompass? What technologies... what science branches... architecture? environment? ship building? exploration of space? ecology? astronomy? medicine? chemistry?

They would be invaluable if the aim of the game were realistic depiction of a post-apocalyptic world (something along the lines of, say, Life After People).

This is just another statement that is not supported by any facts at all - and AGAIN - completely wrong - seeing as ALL MOTHERFUCKING SETTINGS OF ANY KIND are based on reality.

Moreover they seem to be even more pointless if they would constrain all the cool, possible things you could get from a coherently designed fantasy.

If you dont design your fantasy based on reality - you design insane garbage.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Apparently, doubting something simply because no evidence exists

Yes, if you ignore it (or reduce it to "I COULD HAVE GOOGLED THAT") then it doesn't exist. Got it.

What's the evidence again? The yellow blood in Marathon, which is a visual design aspect (same reason the predator's blood is fluorescent green - it looks good and says "this here is an alien!" and has nothing to do with horseshoe crabs), and what else?

It's hard reading shit, yes. So it's good if those designers can use their training but if that training is missing it's useless to ask for advice from someone with that training?

What fucking training? You don't need to know how poison works to design poison GAME MECHANICS. You don't need to be an explosive expert to design interesting bombs, grenades, and things that go boom. You don't need to be a medical school drop out to design healing mechanics. You don't need to be a NRA gun nut to design good firearms mechanics in a fucking game. What's not to understand, Rads?

Great mentality. And then cry about boring settings, enemies and quests.

Boring settings and quests are boring because no scientists were employed. Got it.

 

[Moribund]

But your problem is you never adress the real points just skip it over, every single time.

Now imagine someone doesnt know owls can rotate their heads. A made up example but I'm sure there's stuff a scientist would know the average guy wouldn't know without spending a ton of time researching all of science to see if there's something cool, that is becoming a scientist.

So this owl head rotation thing turns out to be real cool on some game character! And it came from consulting this guy about science. Unless you can refute this possibility, everything you say is meaningless crap. Of course imagine it's something everyone on earth doesn't know already, but heck you know I'd probably not think of that even though I knew it already, but someone who specializes in science and consults movies and games probably has a bunch of fully developed ideas on tap and keeps this in mind.

 

[MRY]

No moron, it does not mean that.
In this case... it motherfucking means that you should not presume - so retardedly - what Socrates would think about video game design. You fucking imbecile.

Wait . . . you don't actually believe that what Socrates meant was, "I am genuinely ignorant, there are many other wise people, I should consult them to learn more," do you?! Have you ever, like, read, I dunno, anything? Even like, maybe, a children's book of philosophy? You do know the background for the quotation, etc.? You do realize that Socrates's whole shtick was going around to purported experts and ridiculing their knowledge, right?

This is all futility, but let me direct you to what Socrates actually had to say about what one should do in consulting experts:

And in a word, when one considers a thing for any purpose, the consulting is in fact about the end one had in view to start with, and not about the means to be used for such end.

Thus, when seeking treatment for the eyes, you talk to an expert about eyes, not an expert about medicine; when seeking a fine bridle for a horse, you talk to an expert on horses, not about bridles.

He elaborates:

Yes, I have, Laches; people, that is, whom you would not care to trust on their mere statement that they were good practitioners, unless they could put forward some example of their personal skill—some work well carried out—not in one only, but several cases.

So, in the spirit of Socratic inquiry: taking the lessons of the Laches dialogue to heart, when Brian Fargo sets out to give a computer game a coherent, scientifically plausible setting, should he talk to experts about games, or experts about science? And how would he best judge those experts?

Mind you, I don't think Socrates has much to say about game design or debates on the Codex. I just think that if one is going to try to seem knowledgeable by quoting Socrates about ignorance, one shouldn't be ignorant about Socrates. That's all.

--EDIT--

This might also be a good point to ask which way you think Aristotle's famous dictum in the Poetics cuts: "What is convincing though impossible should always be preferred to what is possible but unconvincing."

 

[Vault Dweller]

But your problem is you never adress the real points just skip it over, every single time.

Now imagine someone doesnt know owls can rotate their heads. A made up example but I'm sure there's stuff a scientist would know the average guy wouldn't know without spending a ton of time researching all of science to see if there's something cool, that is becoming a scientist.

So this owl head rotation thing turns out to be real cool on some game character! And it came from consulting this guy about science. Unless you can refute this possibility, everything you say is meaningless crap. Of course imagine it's something everyone on earth doesn't know already, but heck you know I'd probably not think of that even though I knew it already, but someone who specializes in science and consults movies and games probably has a bunch of fully developed ideas on tap and keeps this in mind.

Obviously, an expert in a certain field knows tons of shit that an average person doesn't. Like the owl head rotation thing. I'm not saying that a game designer knows as much as an expert. What I *am* saying is that games are limited by many, many factors and fairly simple on top of that and this advanced knowledge is simply not necessary and/or useless. Like the owl head rotation thing.

Take radiation, for example. According to Google, radiation is bad for people. Over 100 rems give you nausea, vomiting, headache, fever. Over 300 points and you get a severe loss of blood cells, which make you very vulnerable to diseases and hemorrhaging. Over 450 points and you're as good as dead. That's the reality. Maybe this info is spot-on and maybe not. I'm sure that a real expert can add a wealth of information and details, but...

A game is a game. You can't catch a large dose of radiation, drop down with fever, bleeding out of your arse, and die a week later. You have to have things like Rad-Away and Rad-X. The player should be able to catch some radiation every now and then to remind the player that he is exploring a post-nuclear war America, but the effects should be downplayed unless the player can't read and ignores repeat warnings. The player should be able to continue adventuring and bravely disregard nausea, fever, and headache, because they don't exist in games. Well, maybe he gets -1 or -2 to Con to show that this shit is serious, but in 99% cases it's an inconvenience, nothing more. So, the question is, do you need a scientist to design radiation as a poison-like cloud plus an item that detects it, an item that increases your resistance, and an item that lowers the current level?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I just realised that Dire Wolves really existed .

 

[hiver]

Thus, when seeking treatment for the eyes, you talk to an expert about eyes, not an expert about medicine; when seeking a fine bridle for a horse, you talk to an expert on horses, not about bridles.

Thus - if you dont have sufficient knowledge you do not claim you do - you go and ask specialists and experts in the relevant fields. i.e. people that actually do know.
(also, you would need to fucking ask a bridle expert too - moron)

Wait . . . you don't actually believe that what Socrates meant was, "I am genuinely ignorant, there are many other wise people, I should consult them to learn more," do you?!

Oh yes, please tell me more about what i actually think.

And then claim to understand what Socrates meant with his simple jibe.

I just realised that Dire Wolves really existed

 

[Moribund]

You have to have things like Rad-Away and Rad-X.

Which both come from science!

Well, I guess it's hopeless. The idea is INSPIRATION. Not knowing in order to add it directly in but as inspiration.

If I didn't know about or think of head rotation I'd not make that cool NPC. The one who seems like the only normal one in the village, who suddenly rotates his head completely around.

So I give this example, and again you just say "no". Well sorry, but you are just wrong, and you are proven wrong.