Outlandish Weapon and Armour Ideas

[Dream]

Nope. If the weapon in question isn't one that I'd want to take on to a field of battle because of its poor design, then it shouldn't be in the game. Double axes/swords are just plain asinine, especially the axes. And all the curved points on the klingon weapon would invariably snag on armor and then you'd be vulnerable to attack while you're trying to free your weapon. Leave the silly stuff for the 8 year-old crowd.

 

Wow, I did not realize you were the ultimate judge on what's poor design and what isn't, my apologies. Also I'm pretty sure having anything more than a dagger in the offhand is rather "poor design" as well and I don't see you stringing the devs up for "catering to 8 year olds" for that (not to mention something as ridiculous as dual wielding flails).

 

Oh, I can suspend my disbelief in "magic" because it's not real to begin with, but melee weapons I do hold to a higher standard because preposterous ones violate the level of verisimilitude I'm hoping for. P.E. should be a game for university or post-university adults, not elementary school children.

 

I guess you have to suspend your disbelief in physics too, or is that not real to begin with either? Additionally the level of realism you might be looking for isn't necessarily the same as the level of realism other people are looking for (unless you believe all "university level adults" think like you).

[Lephys]

The question is, if you think he's being unreasonable in his expectations for realism, then what level of contextual realism would no longer be acceptable? Obviously they can't implement a different level of it for every single player, or the game wouldn't be coherent. So, SOME level of it must be agreed upon in making a game, whether it's none, full, or somewhere in-between.

 

Why not a sword that shoots dragons out? Or why not just allow everything to be a weapon? "I shall smite you with this PLOW!"

 

I think it can be agreed that if someone had a sword that had 15 other swords jutting out in various directions from its blade, that would be ridiculous. Not "It just so happens that a poll reveals that people don't prefer that, and therefore we shouldn't put it in the game." Everything gamers want in a game isn't always a good design decision, so "as long as people want it" isn't really a good basis for all design decisions. It's a factor to consider, but so is contextual realism.

[Dream]

The question is, if you think he's being unreasonable in his expectations for realism, then what level of contextual realism would no longer be acceptable? Obviously they can't implement a different level of it for every single player, or the game wouldn't be coherent. So, SOME level of it must be agreed upon in making a game, whether it's none, full, or somewhere in-between.

 

Why not a sword that shoots dragons out? Or why not just allow everything to be a weapon? "I shall smite you with this PLOW!"

 

I think it can be agreed that if someone had a sword that had 15 other swords jutting out in various directions from its blade, that would be ridiculous. Not "It just so happens that a poll reveals that people don't prefer that, and therefore we shouldn't put it in the game." Everything gamers want in a game isn't always a good design decision, so "as long as people want it" isn't really a good basis for all design decisions. It's a factor to consider, but so is contextual realism.

 

Oh, no doubt. I'd hardly want this game to take place on limbo or anything, but what annoys me are people who try and distinguish between the things they like as being "mature" because they "preserve verisimilitude" while the things other people like somehow break it. There's no such thing as a perfectly believable (for everyone) unrealistic world.

 

The reality is we're all fans of the fantasy (I hope, else I don't know why you would be here), and so we all obviously enjoy unrealistic ****. The only difference is how far different people are willing to suspend their disbelief (whether because of pet peeves, intimate knowledge of certain subjects, personal tastes, whatever). Just admit that and stop trying to paint people who like something you don't as "elementary school children."

[Jarmo]

Just because a weapon exists doesn't mean anyone in their right mind would use it. A Dagger Gun? Good luck with that. I would rather just carry a plain old gun and a plain old dagger and alternate as needed.

 

I'm thinking the gun/whatever combination weapons greatest benefit was the approaching opponent not realising the gun part of it before getting a hole in the face.

Just imagine the way two swordsmen approach each others, then *bang* and the other one goes down.

 

Much the same thing with many other more or less weird weapons. Like the sword breakers.

The effect is much, much greater if the opponent doesn't know you have that trick in your sleeve. Every bit of advantage and all that.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Jarmo

[PrimeJunta]

Now I want a sword that has 15 other swords sticking out of it. Curse you, Lephys.

[Lephys]

Haha. Yeah, I mean, realism isn't the right word. Maybe verisimilitude is closer. It's just... no matter what world you make, it inherits logic. Even if you're dealing with fictitious stuff. So, there's just only so far you can go with certain things. I mean, if your character can summon a moon to come crashing down on your foes like a meteor spell, it's not that "Hey, that's not realistic!". It's that "Hey, now the whole world exploded, and the world was where the story was taking place. That's kind of contradictory and nonsensical of a magic ability, within this world and setup, don't you think?"

 

Now, obviously that's an extreme example, and obviously we've all got slightly different ideas of where the line actually is. My only real concern is that things don't get put in just because they're cool, you know? I don't mind everyone dual-wielding 15-blade Swordspheres, IF you make up some reason for that to happen. It doesn't have to be a perfect, fictitious physics 37-page dissertation or anything. And, if the whole rest of the world still holds true to "blades are very dangerous, and cutty accidents occur all the time," then it's not the impracticality of the weapon within real-world physics that breaks my immersion. It's the lack of coherency in the world.

 

Same with 90-lb girls wielding flaming axes larger than themselves. That's fine by me, until you have absolutely no difference between an 8-foot-tall 400lb muscle mass of a person and that girl. If he can't wield something bigger, or his physical strength counts for nothing at all, you've got a problem. Especially if there's a "Strength" attribute that's different for the both of them.

 

So, it just really has a lot to do with the context. And I don't think we're all trying to make sure everyone else accepts EXACTLY the same believability threshold as we do, here. Everyone's just stating, on a case-by-case basis, how they think the things we're mentioning regarding dual-wielding and what we've seen of it in existing games affect the believability of a fantasy world, from their perspective. That's all we can really do, since we don't know each other's exact perspectives. So, maybe we can collectively get a better sense of the mean, or at least some estimation of where "too fantastical" and "too bland" are.

[LadyCrimson]

Now I want a game that's set on a world surrounded by billions of moons, so I can constantly summon them to smoosh my enemies. Just imagine looking up at the sky and seeing all those moons! .... it'd be beautiful! ... granted, they'd have to be pretty small moons, more like tiny asteroids, but that's all you'd need to smoosh enemies with. Hang the consequences of depleting all those tiny moons from the sky. That's tomorrow. Today, let the destructive chaos reign. The power, the power!

[Lephys]

... granted, they'd have to be pretty small moons, more like tiny asteroids...

 

Ex-cisely! Pre-xactly!

[AGX-17]

Now I want a game that's set on a world surrounded by billions of moons, so I can constantly summon them to smoosh my enemies. Just imagine looking up at the sky and seeing all those moons! .... it'd be beautiful! ... granted, they'd have to be pretty small moons, more like tiny asteroids, but that's all you'd need to smoosh enemies with. Hang the consequences of depleting all those tiny moons from the sky. That's tomorrow. Today, let the destructive chaos reign. The power, the power!

 

You mean a planet with a ring system.

Edited January 4, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

You mean a planet with a ring system.

 

Nope. Tiny moons. BILLIONS! u_u

[Dream]

That reminded me of this:

 

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

 

'Cause we are not shooting for realism; we're shooting for awesome.

[Tamerlane]

Now I want a game that's set on a world surrounded by billions of moons, so I can constantly summon them to smoosh my enemies. Just imagine looking up at the sky and seeing all those moons! .... it'd be beautiful! ... granted, they'd have to be pretty small moons, more like tiny asteroids, but that's all you'd need to smoosh enemies with. Hang the consequences of depleting all those tiny moons from the sky. That's tomorrow. Today, let the destructive chaos reign. The power, the power!

Only if it plays the eighth song from here while you do it.