I really don't like his logic. He isolates certain plot points in specific contexts then leaves those contexts in his rebuttal. Same with the rest of his videos I've bothered to watch.
He buys that they have the technology to create a city in the sky, and in the same breath says it wouldn't work because of sea sickness? Or a simple heating problem?
Technology usually advances in all fields- if they have the technological ability to build the city, you'd think they'd also have Tums. You'd also think that in the planning and pre-construction phases of the city any competent engineers would have noted the problems and not proceeded without implementing some sort of solution.
The game's logic holds more water than his. Under his reasoning, within the game's universe technology would have had to have been developed in narrowly specific fields, and all the engineers on the project (most likely a great number) would have to be entirely incompetent to make such a blunder. The idea that they found solutions to these problems that aren't explained is easier to swallow.
He buys that they have the technology to create a city in the sky, and in the same breath says it wouldn't work because of sea sickness? Or a simple heating problem?
Technology usually advances in all fields- if they have the technological ability to build the city, you'd think they'd also have Tums. You'd also think that in the planning and pre-construction phases of the city any competent engineers would have noted the problems and not proceeded without implementing some sort of solution.
The game's logic holds more water than his. Under his reasoning, within the game's universe technology would have had to have been developed in narrowly specific fields, and all the engineers on the project (most likely a great number) would have to be entirely incompetent to make such a blunder. The idea that they found solutions to these problems that aren't explained is easier to swallow.