I Shouldn't Bring Real Life Logic Into This, Does So Anyway
- Thread starter cojo965
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Drake doesn't actually get hit by any of them. (The half-tuck of his shirt is hiding a Magnetized Plot Armor Device that deflects some bullets and explosion shockwaves but runs out of juice quickly under stress. Some softer blows such as melee strikes come through, however.) Though you could also say Drake's "health" is actually the time the bad guys need to aim properly. It's because of this very reason I found the new Tomb Raider a bit dumb, as Lara clearly gets hit by those arrows sticking out of her.Zhukov said:
Funny enough, I think Nathan could survive Drake's Fortune, as the encounters aren't so completely brutal (it's "just" a band of mercenaries), but the other two games have him perform lots of superhuman feats (the desert, the tank, the train, both convoys... just to name a few).
More generally on topic: overpowered handguns. So so common. I take Uncharted 2 as an example (again): the mutant enemies you face can tank over 60 shots from the AK, but 15 from the handgun is enough to take them out.
A very specific thing for me comes from the Warhammer 40k video game franchises. Mainly with how slow everyone decides to make Space Marines. They are literally superhuman tanks encased in armor that amplifies their superhuman nature. Why do they have such hard times keeping up with Imperial Guard soldiers?
I know people cry balancing... But then you're doing it wrong. There was nothing physical that a regular human could do to be on par with a Space Marine. You depend on the fact for every one Space marine, there's literally millions of humans. You increase the number of Guardsmen allotted to the IG player, not debuff the SM player.
I know people cry balancing... But then you're doing it wrong. There was nothing physical that a regular human could do to be on par with a Space Marine. You depend on the fact for every one Space marine, there's literally millions of humans. You increase the number of Guardsmen allotted to the IG player, not debuff the SM player.
One that's been bugging me lately is that I've started watching Game of Thrones (read the books 2 years ago, now trying to catch up with the show) and everyone puts their swords/knives back in to the sheaths with blood still all over the blade. Not only gross but also a good way to have your blade stick in the sheath the next time you want to draw it, and *really* not good for the blade.
Umm, that's not how that battle went...BloatedGuppy said:
Peter (the kid in question) wasn't calling most of the shots, one of the centaurs in his army was more-or-less telling him step by step what to do.
And they had sound tactics going up against a numerically superior force.. they lured the Witch's army to an open area near a ridge, Peter's army didn't mass in the open area, they stayed mostly sheltered among the rocks.
Then with the Witch's army massed in the open, they sprang the first surprise-- they had somewhere in the area of 100 griffins carrying rocks fly over the Witch's massed forces, dropping the rocks. (And a small part of my mind grimly noted that the Pevensie children seemed to have brought the concept of *bombing* from WWII London to Narnia with them.)
After the aerial assault, then Peter called the charge, and his forces formed a line trying to hold the Witch's army back from the ridge. Which initially did seem stupid (would have been better to stay in the rocks & force their opponents to come at them through narrow pathways) *until* Peter's army sprang it's second surprise.. they were keeping the Witch's army massed in a group so that a phoenix was able to fly through their ranks, cutting a huge swath of fire through them. Which was working really well, except that the Witch was able to neutralize the phoenix with her magic.
It was after that the Narnian's line broke and it descended in to a melee... even then they had some tactical advantage in having archers in the rocks trying to pick off targets in the melee.
The things I wondered about in that fight were;
1-Where did all the griffins go after the initial rock dropping maneuver? There were about 100 of them and then you see maybe 2 griffins in the whole rest of the fight.
2-Why not keep a couple of those griffins in reserve until the ground fighting began, with orders to try and drop rocks on the Witch when the battle was engaged? If they had taken the Witch out almost half of their problems would have vanished.
And they had sound tactics going up against a numerically superior force.. they lured the Witch's army to an open area near a ridge, Peter's army didn't mass in the open area, they stayed mostly sheltered among the rocks.
Then with the Witch's army massed in the open, they sprang the first surprise-- they had somewhere in the area of 100 griffins carrying rocks fly over the Witch's massed forces, dropping the rocks. (And a small part of my mind grimly noted that the Pevensie children seemed to have brought the concept of *bombing* from WWII London to Narnia with them.)
After the aerial assault, then Peter called the charge, and his forces formed a line trying to hold the Witch's army back from the ridge. Which initially did seem stupid (would have been better to stay in the rocks & force their opponents to come at them through narrow pathways) *until* Peter's army sprang it's second surprise.. they were keeping the Witch's army massed in a group so that a phoenix was able to fly through their ranks, cutting a huge swath of fire through them. Which was working really well, except that the Witch was able to neutralize the phoenix with her magic.
It was after that the Narnian's line broke and it descended in to a melee... even then they had some tactical advantage in having archers in the rocks trying to pick off targets in the melee.
The things I wondered about in that fight were;
1-Where did all the griffins go after the initial rock dropping maneuver? There were about 100 of them and then you see maybe 2 griffins in the whole rest of the fight.
2-Why not keep a couple of those griffins in reserve until the ground fighting began, with orders to try and drop rocks on the Witch when the battle was engaged? If they had taken the Witch out almost half of their problems would have vanished.
Maybe you're thinking of the 2nd movie? The battle in that one isn't really how you describe either and the 'little kid' was a guy in his mid to late teens (who had theoretically had tactical/combat training for his whole life), but there *was* tactical stupidity in that one that was so bad it makes my stomach hurt.
Poise in Dark Souls sometimes leads to ridiculous situations, like when you hit an enemy with a club the size of a car, yet they don't budge an inch. The small ledges and thresholds the character is incapable of climbing (YET COULD DO IN DEMON'S SOULS!) is also maddening. Dark Souls II is particularly ridiculous, since you could just go straight to Drangleic Castle if your character could climb over a small pile of rubble.
Fallout was great for thosePhasmal said:
When there is something my character could clearly navigate with a reasonable sized human body, like a broken door or a knee-high fence that the game is just like `Nah, girl, you can't go this way because you couldn't possibly get through this`.
I can see the other side, I should be able to get through to it no problem.
Also, shooting someone "un-killable" until they should be reduced to a fine red mist; "Oh no! _______ is unconscious!"
This always got me with the style of fighting they gave Batman in the Arkham games. Especially when you add in the lack of potential medical treatment in City and Knight (Asylum had doctors amidst its captives I could allow for), there's no way that the guys taking those hits to the point they can no longer even stand up unaided are all surviving.DementedSheep said:
BioShock and Bloodborne both bothered me by the protagonist jamming a vial in to themselves to restore ADAM/restore health respectively. It works fine and is quick and efficient as a game mechanic, but holy shit I find it very doubtful that in the thick of battle you're perfectly capable of hitting the right vein or artery every time with such ease.
Games often show the box being dropped straight out. I honestly don't car about the realism, since I'm usually playing as a hulking space marine who can shrug off hundreds of bullets, but it doesn't really seem to support the "in the pocket" model.Dr. McD said:
Not really. I can do this thing called "Suspend my disbelief." It really helps.
Kidding. Actually for me it's just quality. Movies, tv, video games, books, whatever. If I'm enjoying the experience, I never have any problem suspending disbelief. For example, I really dislike Borderlands, but if I'm playing with pals on a lan or on console splitscreen... It's a blast. Otherwise it's just a samey, tedious, boring, unreal engine brownshooter. I can overlook all the cheese and dated effects of Big Trouble in Little China and love every minute. But something as bad as Man of Steel hits the screen and all I can see is the horrid overuse of shaky-cam.
Kidding. Actually for me it's just quality. Movies, tv, video games, books, whatever. If I'm enjoying the experience, I never have any problem suspending disbelief. For example, I really dislike Borderlands, but if I'm playing with pals on a lan or on console splitscreen... It's a blast. Otherwise it's just a samey, tedious, boring, unreal engine brownshooter. I can overlook all the cheese and dated effects of Big Trouble in Little China and love every minute. But something as bad as Man of Steel hits the screen and all I can see is the horrid overuse of shaky-cam.
Yeah, if it's otherwise good I can give it a pass at stupid things. For this reason, though, best not to do something like that in the beginning, it needs to get me onside first.Kyrian007 said:
Since people have the video game tropes pretty well covered I've got one from movies.
You get these action movies with extended gun battles where they shoot and shoot and shoot, way more than any sensible magazine they show could be carrying. It's like someone turned the infinite ammo on for the gun fight. Then the fight ends, with expectations of another soon, and they reload... WTF? Better yet the infinite ammo fights where you get a close up of the protagonist, where they reload, after like running a hundred rounds through a revolver.
You get these action movies with extended gun battles where they shoot and shoot and shoot, way more than any sensible magazine they show could be carrying. It's like someone turned the infinite ammo on for the gun fight. Then the fight ends, with expectations of another soon, and they reload... WTF? Better yet the infinite ammo fights where you get a close up of the protagonist, where they reload, after like running a hundred rounds through a revolver.
Nah, it's just like tennis. You don't know this, but you've secretly got a "magazine boy" running behind you, scooping up all the magazines you drop on the ground and replenishing them, before sticking them back into your ammo bag. He's putting his life on the line so you can do things like reload after 2 shots. Give the poor guy some credit.MarsAtlas said: