Since no one cares about realism, then it should be no problem to kill an onos with a lmg. Surely the lmg is just an assault rifle, but we can assume that it has advanced alien killing features and therefore an onos would stand no chance against a magazine of lmg to the face. Nevermind realism which would state that the bullets have a hard time piercing the onoses armor.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1755147:date=Feb 25 2010, 10:05 PM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Feb 25 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since no one cares about realism, then it should be no problem to kill an onos with a lmg. Surely the lmg is just an assault rifle, but we can assume that it has advanced alien killing features and therefore an onos would stand no chance against a magazine of lmg to the face. Nevermind realism which would state that the bullets have a hard time piercing the onoses armor.
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do recognise the logical fallacy there, right?
<!--quoteo(post=1755147:date=Feb 25 2010, 09:05 PM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Feb 25 2010, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since no one cares about realism, then it should be no problem to kill an onos with a lmg. Surely the lmg is just an assault rifle, but we can assume that it has advanced alien killing features and therefore an onos would stand no chance against a magazine of lmg to the face. Nevermind realism which would state that the bullets have a hard time piercing the onoses armor.
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have him ignored, but there's something irresistible about his brand of stupidity that keeps making me check his posts anyways. He definitely does not disappoint.
I'm thinking he's just a troll though, because it would be an incredible stretch to believe someone is <i>actually</i> that stupid.
<!--quoteo(post=1755087:date=Feb 25 2010, 10:59 AM:name=Battle-Bug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Battle-Bug @ Feb 25 2010, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755087"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Frangible bullets will break up into small, less harmful, pieces upon contact with anything <b>harder than they are (aliens are gooey)</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
orly? I always thought Alien had this hard carapace. Otherwise bullets would insta shred them.
<!--quoteo(post=1755147:date=Feb 25 2010, 10:05 PM:name=FocusedWolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FocusedWolf @ Feb 25 2010, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since no one cares about realism, then it should be no problem to kill an onos with a lmg. Surely the lmg is just an assault rifle, but we can assume that it has advanced alien killing features and therefore an onos would stand no chance against a magazine of lmg to the face. Nevermind realism which would state that the bullets have a hard time piercing the onoses armor.
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow you're stupid. If it was real it would be VERY possible. A bullet to a vital organ is all it takes.
Oh and if it was real, lets include.
Frantic Aiming. Can't shoot straight while you're scared. Blurred Vision because sometimes it takes a while for the eyes to focus. No respawning since there's no such thing as respawn in real life. And you can't magically control another marine. Gun jamming because ######t happens. Can't move for 10 minutes after gestating because it takes time for newborns/cocoon etc etc etc
<!--quoteo(post=1755236:date=Feb 25 2010, 06:19 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Feb 25 2010, 06:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755236"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->orly? I always thought Alien had this hard carapace. Otherwise bullets would insta shred them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> hard carapace < steel hull :)
Therefore, aliens should start off with scissors as armour and every level of upgrade they get should follow the above line to its logical <a href="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5425/after2j.jpg" target="_blank">conclusion.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1755324:date=Feb 26 2010, 02:48 AM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Feb 26 2010, 02:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->orly? hides get pretty darn tough, and tortoise shells are wicked hard. It would give your 2x tolerance bullet a run for its money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's a difference between different material properties. That's why we aren't using tortoise shells to build airplanes and sky scrapers. You're probably talking about surface hardness with the shell. Alloy steel has tensile <b>strength </b>and is probably harder too.
If it'd be realism, we'd just nuke them from the orbit.
But yeah, I don't want realism in NS too much. I've always liked the arcade-like physics, fast-paced gameplay, no recoil etc. If I want realism I play Operation Flashpoint etc. not NS. Realism works in games that simulate reality like Flight Sims, WW2Online and OFP but not in games like NS and Team Fortress which are packed full of fast-paced action.
I could care less about nanites and all that malarky. Just interested to know how important realism is for you when you're blasting away at <b>aliens</b> in the <b>future</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>No its not good, its like salt, a bit but not to much.</b>
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
There is a concept called 'internal consistency' which should be applied to a game before realism.
What this means is that a player should intuitively know what to expect from a situation given his experiences with the game so far.
One example of this would be zero gravity. Yes, it would be realistic to have zero gravity on that map that is set in a space ship, or radial gravity in that space station that is rotating BUT both of these would break the internal consistency of the game. A player would play on maps with normal earth-like gravity and then be transported to a map where the very basics of movement are thrown away and the player has to relearn how to navigate a map again.
The importance of internal consistency is proportional to the use of the feature under consideration in the basic gameplay elements. For example, we really don't care if the skybox shows zero-gravity effects or a rotating space station because that doesn't matter to how we play the game it only adds style to the setting.
Take gorge belly slide as another example. Some people were commenting that this is just a cool/cute feature with no benefit to gameplay, but I disagree. Gorge belly-slide can easily be the gorges movement technique that allows them to apply their knowledge of map architecture to gain an advantage over marines in pursuit. This is an example of a feature that adds to gameplay *AND* adds something that is visually cool to the game. Although its use is situational - it will only be effective downhill - it is completely intuitive and consistent.
<!--quoteo(post=1758752:date=Mar 11 2010, 12:47 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 11 2010, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758752"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Take gorge belly slide as another example. Some people were commenting that this is just a cool/cute feature with no benefit to gameplay, but I disagree. Gorge belly-slide can easily be the gorges movement technique that allows them to apply their knowledge of map architecture to gain an advantage over marines in pursuit. This is an example of a feature that adds to gameplay *AND* adds something that is visually cool to the game. Although its use is situational - it will only be effective downhill - it is completely intuitive and consistent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure I understand how the belly slide is internal consistency. I see it as a feature that you learn to know, not as anything I'd instantly expect from a gorge when I see it the first time. It can be an inuitive and valuable feature on its own, but I don't completely understand the connection to the internal consistency.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited March 2010
Why would you expect a belly slide any less than spit or healing spray? My point is that the implementation of a feature selected for its gameplay does not produce any scenarios in which you look at it and think "well that just doesn't make sense at all".. how can a gorge possibly belly slide?
Something can be realistic and consistent with gameplay. I guess my point is that you shouldn't focus on realism, but you should pick intuitive features than enhance gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1758758:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:43 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Mar 11 2010, 07:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758758"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure I understand how the belly slide is internal consistency. <u>I see it as a feature that you learn to know</u>,<u> not as anything I'd instantly expect from a gorge when I see it the first time</u>. It can be an inuitive and valuable feature on its own, but I don't completely understand the connection to the internal consistency.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You make it sound like the game needs to make you crippled with keyboard macros. How about you sprint, and jump, and while the "W" key is pressed your character slides until your off of the dynamic infestation, you run out of momentum because your trying to slide on a normal floor surface, or you let go of "W". Make the D.I. frictionless surface for the gorge belly.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1755376:date=Feb 26 2010, 03:07 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Feb 26 2010, 03:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1755376"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->bone > steel > ice > paper > rock > scissors.
Therefore, aliens should start off with scissors as armour and every level of upgrade they get should follow the above line to its logical <a href="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5425/after2j.jpg" target="_blank">conclusion.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But why is scissors>paper>rock>scissors>paper......... :P Math can't solve this puzzle :P
<!--quoteo(post=1758759:date=Mar 11 2010, 01:45 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 11 2010, 01:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1758759"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why would you expect a belly slide any less than spit or healing spray? My point is that the implementation of a feature selected for its gameplay does not produce any scenarios in which you look at it and think "well that just doesn't make sense at all".. how can a gorge possibly belly slide?
Something can be realistic and consistent with gameplay. I guess my point is that you shouldn't focus on realism, but you should pick intuitive features than enhance gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't expect any of them. They are all features of gameplay for me, something I learn when I first time play the gorge, not something I'd necessarily expect before playing the game and finding them out.
I understood your first description of internal consistency as a more of the game ruleset that doesn't get contradicted in every turn, so you can make some assumptions even without trying out everything. So, for example I could expect everything behaving with the same physics. On NS1 for example alien having a melee attack on slot 1 (although gorge contradicts) would be internal consistency as I understood it.
Just to be clear, I'm not critisizing the belly slide in any way. I'm just not sure of the definition of internal consistency.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
The first examples were of features that would break internal consistency - weird gravities just force the player to rethink the basics of gameplay.
The second example - belly slide - was of a feature that does not break internal consistency. It's just an extension to gameplay that should be weighed on its own merits.
I just care about preserving the environment, not realism. I don't want to see bears and nazis in the game.
The question is where is the line between absurd and reasonable. So long as additions don't ruin gameplay and the feel of the game, it can possible be a reasonable idea.
Comments
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.
jeez...
E.g.
yes to realistic weapon sounds but no to recoil.
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do recognise the logical fallacy there, right?
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have him ignored, but there's something irresistible about his brand of stupidity that keeps making me check his posts anyways. He definitely does not disappoint.
I'm thinking he's just a troll though, because it would be an incredible stretch to believe someone is <i>actually</i> that stupid.
orly? I always thought Alien had this hard carapace. Otherwise bullets would insta shred them.
+ 1 for no realism and bad gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow you're stupid. If it was real it would be VERY possible. A bullet to a vital organ is all it takes.
Oh and if it was real, lets include.
Frantic Aiming. Can't shoot straight while you're scared.
Blurred Vision because sometimes it takes a while for the eyes to focus.
No respawning since there's no such thing as respawn in real life. And you can't magically control another marine.
Gun jamming because ######t happens.
Can't move for 10 minutes after gestating because it takes time for newborns/cocoon
etc
etc
etc
/sarcasm
hard carapace < steel hull :)
orly? hides get pretty darn tough, and tortoise shells are wicked hard. It would give your 2x tolerance bullet a run for its money.
Therefore, aliens should start off with scissors as armour and every level of upgrade they get should follow the above line to its logical <a href="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5425/after2j.jpg" target="_blank">conclusion.</a>
There's a difference between different material properties. That's why we aren't using tortoise shells to build airplanes and sky scrapers. You're probably talking about surface hardness with the shell. Alloy steel has tensile <b>strength </b>and is probably harder too.
But yeah, I don't want realism in NS too much. I've always liked the arcade-like physics, fast-paced gameplay, no recoil etc. If I want realism I play Operation Flashpoint etc. not NS. Realism works in games that simulate reality like Flight Sims, WW2Online and OFP but not in games like NS and Team Fortress which are packed full of fast-paced action.
I could care less about nanites and all that malarky. Just interested to know how important realism is for you when you're blasting away at <b>aliens</b> in the <b>future</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>No its not good, its like salt, a bit but not to much.</b>
but with Fun and Balance
What this means is that a player should intuitively know what to expect from a situation given his experiences with the game so far.
One example of this would be zero gravity. Yes, it would be realistic to have zero gravity on that map that is set in a space ship, or radial gravity in that space station that is rotating BUT both of these would break the internal consistency of the game. A player would play on maps with normal earth-like gravity and then be transported to a map where the very basics of movement are thrown away and the player has to relearn how to navigate a map again.
The importance of internal consistency is proportional to the use of the feature under consideration in the basic gameplay elements. For example, we really don't care if the skybox shows zero-gravity effects or a rotating space station because that doesn't matter to how we play the game it only adds style to the setting.
Take gorge belly slide as another example. Some people were commenting that this is just a cool/cute feature with no benefit to gameplay, but I disagree. Gorge belly-slide can easily be the gorges movement technique that allows them to apply their knowledge of map architecture to gain an advantage over marines in pursuit. This is an example of a feature that adds to gameplay *AND* adds something that is visually cool to the game. Although its use is situational - it will only be effective downhill - it is completely intuitive and consistent.
I'm not sure I understand how the belly slide is internal consistency. I see it as a feature that you learn to know, not as anything I'd instantly expect from a gorge when I see it the first time. It can be an inuitive and valuable feature on its own, but I don't completely understand the connection to the internal consistency.
Something can be realistic and consistent with gameplay. I guess my point is that you shouldn't focus on realism, but you should pick intuitive features than enhance gameplay.
You make it sound like the game needs to make you crippled with keyboard macros. How about you sprint, and jump, and while the "W" key is pressed your character slides until your off of the dynamic infestation, you run out of momentum because your trying to slide on a normal floor surface, or you let go of "W". Make the D.I. frictionless surface for the gorge belly.
Therefore, aliens should start off with scissors as armour and every level of upgrade they get should follow the above line to its logical <a href="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5425/after2j.jpg" target="_blank">conclusion.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why is scissors>paper>rock>scissors>paper......... :P Math can't solve this puzzle :P
Something can be realistic and consistent with gameplay. I guess my point is that you shouldn't focus on realism, but you should pick intuitive features than enhance gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't expect any of them. They are all features of gameplay for me, something I learn when I first time play the gorge, not something I'd necessarily expect before playing the game and finding them out.
I understood your first description of internal consistency as a more of the game ruleset that doesn't get contradicted in every turn, so you can make some assumptions even without trying out everything. So, for example I could expect everything behaving with the same physics. On NS1 for example alien having a melee attack on slot 1 (although gorge contradicts) would be internal consistency as I understood it.
Just to be clear, I'm not critisizing the belly slide in any way. I'm just not sure of the definition of internal consistency.
The second example - belly slide - was of a feature that does not break internal consistency. It's just an extension to gameplay that should be weighed on its own merits.
The question is where is the line between absurd and reasonable. So long as additions don't ruin gameplay and the feel of the game, it can possible be a reasonable idea.