MetalCraze said:
AP has a real world as its setting. So it's arguing about writing making sense within the setting.
I mean would it make much sense if you offloaded ancient roman warriors into a futuristic post-apocalyptic desert? Nobody would be stupid enough to write a town worshipping a nuclear bomb either, right?
News at 11, skyway cannot into fiction.
So, here are some examples for you, fagway:
James Bond.
Pussy Galore? More realistic character than Sis? y/n
Octopussy? More realistic character than Sis? y/n
Oddjob? More realistic than Brayko? y/n
SPECTRE? More realistic organisation than anything in AP? y/n
Blowfeld? More realistic character than anyone in AP? y/n
Now let's try post-apocalyptic:
A Boy and His Dog:
A telepathic ultra intelligent dog that can communicate only with Don Johnson? More realistic than Caesar's legion? y/n
A cult of underground happy valley 1950s recreationists all wearing make-up? More realistic to a post-apoc setting than anything Obsidian or Interplay ever did? y/n
You see, faggotway, fiction can have a realistic setting, but introduce elements of the surreal or extrapolations from the real to the future-real. Apparently you haven't dealt with any fiction post, I dunno.... 1450? Maybe in Ukraine you're still reading what the Orthodox church tells you, like a faggot. Because obviously you haven't even dealt with the basic elements of the fantastic in the real, like Don Quixote, or any 20th Century example.
Stick to ARMA, obviously your fucking aspie brain cannot handle the vaguest hint of illusion.