Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Complete Failures Of All That Is Logic

1235

Posts

  • Eight RooksEight Rooks Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Anyone who applies any of this to Red Alert is thinking waaaaaaay too hard.

    Oh, and at least one mainstream FPS has done backblast from rocket launchers. I doubt it's that much more realistic, but I remember being highly amused when I nearly killed myself in Far Cry 2, not because I shot something from point blank as is the most common cause of comedy deaths in the genre, but because the backblast from the weapon set the grass behind me on fire. :P

    Eight Rooks on
    <AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.

    Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Vegan wrote: »

    -Balls of fire in explosions (particularly with frag grenades). Most explosions DO NOT produce a ball of fire. This normally will only happen when there's an accelerant added to the mix. Game developers watch too many movies.

    Um


    Maybe the reason something that shows up in one multimedia piece of entertainment because it's visually thrilling is showing up in another multimedia piece of entertainment isn't because "Game developers watch too many movies"

    In other words, balls of fire look cool, provide visual feedback for an explosion, and video games aren't a fied that has to be more accurate in its portrayals of explosions than film.

    I just think your reasoning of "Game developers watch too many movies" is a little post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Khavall on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Antihippy wrote: »
    A battle between 2 traps

    Weird and fighting games just goes so well together.

    Yeah, the best thing about Guilty Gear is that it takes the weird all the way up to 12. It's probably not the strangest 2D fighter ever, but it's probably the strangest of the big names.

    I mean.....you've got the douchebag vampire, a guy who is dressed by his parents as a girl, a cop with a sword and long robes, his robot doppleganger, a short, scarred lady with one arm who is a cultural treasure, some sort of weird....witch....rockstar....hooker....and whatever the hell Dizzy is. It's like a satanic version of Cheers.

    Seriously, the waitress who balances on one leg is probably the least strange character.

    Slayer is not a douchebag.

    Slayer is slick.

    And I honestly can't think of a fighter weirder than guilty gear.
    Or better than guilty gear. :P

    WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

    It goes without saying that there are better 2D fighters than the admittedly very good Guilty Gear. But I don't know if there are any weirder 2D fighters.

    *thinks hard*

    In the meantime, more MGS weirdness.
    mgs3comic02.jpg

    Bees are weird.

    If you think Guilty Gear is the weirdest 2D fighter ever, you'd be wrong because it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Aniki (specifically, the SNES one, which is a fighting game instead of a shooter, and probably one of the few games which can unironically be called "totally fucking gay".

    Vincent Grayson on
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    7 pages and I can't believe this hasn't been mentioned. Totally obscure sidequests and outright halts in the flow of time in RPGs

    FFXII: Oops, you opened these three random chests, now you can't find the best spear in the game later. Um, why? Just because, that's why.

    Another one, I just found out that because I missed a scene in an early part of Tales of Vesperia. Rita names a blastia in her house and if you miss this then you can't find the thieves later in the game that have stolen Judith's spear. How the fuck that is related in any logical way is beyond me. I should also mention the fact that you have no real indication of where these thieves are located in the first place. You literally have to search every fucking area in the game, get lucky, or look at a guide.

    Quests that have obscure, unrelated requirements or mindless backtracking with no clues whatsoever are total failures in logic.

    Something else that grinds my nerves about RPGs:

    Generic Dude: "Quick, you gotta go save my girlfriend or the villain will kill her before the sun sets!"

    Generic Hero: "Okay dude, sure thing. First though, I need to rest at the inn then go scour the world for the bromide of happiness, then go fishing for a bit. Don't worry about your girlfriend though, the villain always waits for the hero to show up before doing anything diabolical."

    Generic Dude: "Thanks man, you're awesome!"

    Just once I'd like an RPG to fuck you over if you took too long to continue the main storyline.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Bushido Blade youtube
    As far as I can tell this is a completely normal video of a guy playing Bushido Blade. If your point is that they're not fighting realistically, you may as well have posted a video of Dragon Warrior or Mario Galaxy.

    UncleSporky on
    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • DarkoneDarkone Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Sorenson wrote: »
    EDIT: Also, this whole insistance that videogame capital ships be these slow-as-syrup monstrosities that move with all the grace of an old man with a displaced hip. Assuming a similar engine-to-hull ratio between a capital ship and smaller vessels, a capital ship ought to be able to keep pace with a fighter craft just fine in terms of raw speed, and there's no good reason that they can't move about with some kind of grace.

    To be fair, space combat in games in inherently unrealistic. Any type of ship using parts that are possible according to physics will be composed, on a mass basis, of almost all fuel. It takes ALOT of fuel to get any appreciable speed.

    Even ignoring that, theres also upper limits on the output/size ratio of engines, and more importantly, structural integrity. If you have a ship that weighs billions of tons, and is a couple kilometers long, theres a very serious limit as to how much acceleration it can stand before buckingling like a soda can between a lead plate and a rocket.

    What I hate far more in these games, is not max speed - you would have governors to prevent you from accelerating to too high of a speed in the heat of combat - but the amazingly LOW top speed so many games impose. Freespace, while awesome, was horrible for this, in that the fastest strike craft in the game could only pull ~150 M/s, or a mere 540 KM/H. Of course, few games feature anything more than point blank knife-fights, which is what you call anything under 10 miles or so... which is why I'm looking forward to Infinity:The Quest for Earth. We'll get to play around with weapons whos range is measured in tens of thousands of kilometers, which will make me giddy with glee :winky:

    Darkone on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Bushido Blade youtube
    As far as I can tell this is a completely normal video of a guy playing Bushido Blade. If your point is that they're not fighting realistically, you may as well have posted a video of Dragon Warrior or Mario Galaxy.

    It's a reply to the post above, genius-type.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Quests that have obscure, unrelated requirements or mindless backtracking with no clues whatsoever are total failures in logic.

    That's a failure in game design, but not really in logic...

    It's far more of a failure in logic when everyone knows the location and series of steps required to get a legendary artifact that can kill the guy threatening to destroy all life but no one does it 'till the hero comes along.

    Khavall on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Just once I'd like an RPG to fuck you over if you took too long to continue the main storyline.

    Fallout! Take too long and your Vault dies horribly!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieq8IB0kCwA

    emnmnme on
  • King LemmingKing Lemming Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    While I think this is kind of a general peeve, shooting a vehicle in the gas tank does NOT make it explode.

    Some games can get away with this - sci fi stuff where introducing a rocket into the anti-matter containment field or whatever might actually be bad.

    This comes to mind because of a little obscure game (that I actually played the hell out of) called Mobile Forces. In fact - it wasn't even shooting the gas tank, just the gas CAP. If you wanted to halt the enemy's advance to your base, you got up on a mountain with a sniper rifle and picked off some tanks. Of course, in the less armored vehicles, you could just shoot the driver too.

    But, it was still a lot of fun. One of those obscure niche FPS's from the early 2000s.

    King Lemming on
  • MetalbourneMetalbourne Inside a cluster b personalityRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I brought this up in the X3 thread, but it bears mentioning again:

    In X3: Terran Conflict, when you buy a used ship from someone, he will bail out in his space suit in space and float away. Using "Video Game Logic" I suppose the pilot could have suddenly stopped existing once he had the money and the ship was yours, but for some reason the developers thought it important to actually have a little man hop out of his ship and "walk" back to the nearest shipyard.

    Metalbourne on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I like shooting a car going at a high speeds tires out in Crysis.

    It makes sense that it looses control and even flips on the uneven terrain at high speed.

    But when you shoot a trucks tire out, it loses control, flips, and then EXPLODES....

    Of course Crysis is a B-action movie that you play through anyways so it's fine.

    Khavall on
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Just once I'd like an RPG to fuck you over if you took too long to continue the main storyline.

    Fallout! Take too long and your Vault dies horribly!

    I forgot about Fallout. It's definitely an exception to the rule.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • BeekeeperBeekeeper Registered User
    edited May 2009
    But, logic in our world or how we see "logic" is not always logic in their world. Our world is not their world. Even though we see the way things are in our world, that doesn't mean they always have to be that way or they always are that way.

    Beekeeper on
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Concerning the Space sim complaints, Galactic Civilizations explains such leaps in logic concerning the size of the ships by saying they use energy fields to hold them together.

    Terminus will let you rip your ship apart if you go past a certain speed without proper support or the wrong type of ship.

    It was actually quite fun to tweak the thrusters and increase your acceleration by 1 in/s at a time to get the most speed without smashing your ride. Unfortunately you had to start decelerating the moment you hit it so that you wouldn't overshoot your target.

    RoyceSraphim on
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Also, *BOING*. Although I really hate that thing they do in Japanese media where someone will lift up a hot girl's skirt or squeeze her breasts, the camera will linger on her for ages, and then she'll hit/scream at the guy, as if that somehow makes the male fantasy part of it less obvious. It's similar to game devs dressing up women in stripperific costumes, but making her a tough-talking bad ass, like her sole purpose isn't for us guys to masterbate to. I mean I'm totally cool with showing women with perfect bodies and gigantic boobs in any game or cartoon created in the world, ever, just wish they'd be more honest about it.

    Well, the whole stripperific thing is easily as American as it is Japanese (after all, we Americans gave the world the mass-produced pin-up and the racing queen).

    The big question, of course, is when is it better to be honest and blatant about it, or when is it better just to hold it as a stylistic choice. In the Bayonetta thread, we've got people arguing it both ways--on one hand, they're being honest that they're trying to appeal to that unique S&M librarian with really long hair fetish group. On the other hand, it's pretty damn obvious from all the crotch shots they're just going for the cheap appeal.

    For me personally, the line is drawn somewhere between "well, okay, she's got a skimpy outfit. So what? The Greeks fucking fought nude in their epics, who am I to judge? I'm a fucking prude, after all..." and "All right, if I see that bitch's crotch one more time, I'm going to shake my head profoundly and re-evaluate my choice in going with this game". I suppose I'm willing to overlook a lot of issues in character design so long as the character itself isn't a total whore--and by whore, I mean her boobs or crotch aren't secondary characters in their own right (see: TTGL). Like evil, it requires intent, not just presence. But that only works for me, and obviously, designers are not going to cater to my tastes specifically.

    One thing that kind of annoys me, though I don't think it could be said it goes against 'logic' necessarily, so much as reality--in the Red Alert games, the Soviet Military (I will not say faction, I hate how that's been applied to everything now) is given these gigantic honking steam-roller tanks with two high-caliber cannons on their turrets, whereas the Allied Forces are given this pansy ass high-speed tanks apparently constructed out of shiny aluminum pinball machine casing, with tiny guns.

    This is not an accurate representation of any historical time period. For the entirety of the Cold War, and even before it, the USSR's tank doctrine relied on large numbers of heavily armed but increasingly fast, and above all small-profile tanks--giving us high-speed MBTs like the T-80. The Allies, on the other hand, frequently engaged each other in who could make the biggest, slowest, most expensive, most heavily armored death machine, fuel consumption be damned--giving us giants like the Leopard and the Abrams. I could go into things like horse-power to tonne ratios, but you get the point.

    I realize the assumption is based on the idea that the USSR was a really big country, and thus, a land power. And I realize this is overlooking things like time travel and commandos with their shirts unzipped and their knockers on display in order to save the Free World from the Red Menace. But this is one thing that annoys me. With the exception of the IS-2, the USSR had no super tank in the Cold War period, while the Allies had several.

    Oh, and 'Allies versus Soviets' is kind of annoying. In part because the actual Allies, i.e. the United Nations, included the USSR, and that the USSR had its own alliance. I suppose the most accurate would be 'NATO versus Warsaw Pact', or you could even narrow it down to 'United States versus Soviet Union'.

    Yeah, I wasn't aiming the second criticism at Japanese devs specifically. As for the tank thing, I think the easiest explanation is that it just fits the theme of how the Soviet Union is generally portrayed in U.S./Europe v USSR settings - an oppressive behemoth slowly but steadily grinding Europe beneath its heels etc. etc. Russian tanks are usually drawn/animated as if their main purpose is to run over your house (IIRC, virtually all games/films adhering to this trope have at least one scene of a Russian tank flattening a building). Even in End War, which is set in the future, the Russian tanks have slightly better health and are dubbed "Ogres" or something :P Like you say, in reality Soviet tanks were built with Sov. military doctrine in mind, which emphasized speed and mobility. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of Cold War tanks, but I'm pretty sure the only thing games like Red Alert get right about the differences between Sov/NATO MBTs is that the heaviest Soviet tanks' main cannons often (though not always) had slightly better penetration (i.e. higher damage when simplified in game terms), whilst the American tanks were more technologically advanced (even when they're chaper or weaker in the games, they usually have special abilities of some kind).

    I'm only repeating what I've been told, though. Anyway, I prefer the way Soviet technology is depicted in slightly-fantastical scenarios. It's not like depicting the USSR as a huge bastard is particularly unfair.

    Ed321 on
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Beekeeper wrote: »
    But, logic in our world or how we see "logic" is not always logic in their world. Our world is not their world. Even though we see the way things are in our world, that doesn't mean they always have to be that way or they always are that way.

    One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of interesting gravitational or other physical changes when on alien worlds. Half-Life did it with Xen, but only a little.

    Tamin on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Tamin wrote: »
    Beekeeper wrote: »
    But, logic in our world or how we see "logic" is not always logic in their world. Our world is not their world. Even though we see the way things are in our world, that doesn't mean they always have to be that way or they always are that way.

    One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of interesting gravitational or other physical changes when on alien worlds. Half-Life did it with Xen, but only a little.

    For the most part, games are incredibly boring about those sorts of setting ideas. Why can't there be a world where the color of an object determines the strength of it's gravitational field or where loud noises cause flowers or something?

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Beekeeper wrote: »
    But, logic in our world or how we see "logic" is not always logic in their world. Our world is not their world. Even though we see the way things are in our world, that doesn't mean they always have to be that way or they always are that way.

    Logic in our world is exactly like logic in their world. What you mean is physical circumstances and the nature of the universe might differ. If your world is not logical it's almost certainly shit.

    Leitner on
  • TaminTamin Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Tamin wrote: »
    Beekeeper wrote: »
    But, logic in our world or how we see "logic" is not always logic in their world. Our world is not their world. Even though we see the way things are in our world, that doesn't mean they always have to be that way or they always are that way.

    One of my biggest pet peeves is the lack of interesting gravitational or other physical changes when on alien worlds. Half-Life did it with Xen, but only a little.

    For the most part, games are incredibly boring about those sorts of setting ideas. Why can't there be a world where the color of an object determines the strength of it's gravitational field or where loud noises cause flowers or something?

    Coding? *shrug*

    I've always wanted to create a game where sounds create physical things. Like a high-pitched noise would be able to create a bridge due to how close the vibrations are; a low noise might be useful in other ways.

    But I lack skill, so.

    Tamin on
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm only repeating what I've been told, though. Anyway, I prefer the way Soviet technology is depicted in slightly-fantastical scenarios. It's not like depicting the USSR as a huge bastard is particularly unfair.

    Oh, didn't you get the memo? The poor defenseless Soviet Union was in fact ground up by the evil western bourgeoise's greed, warmongering and military industrial complex!

    Whoops, sorry, had a college flash back there. Back to reality.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • jonny_digitaljonny_digital Registered User
    edited May 2009
    Not a video game, but instead from the new Star Trek movie:
    I really got sucked out of the movie by the plot device at the end that the Romulans had shut down all of Earth's defenses with some code provided by an Admiral. Seriously? It shuts down EVERYTHING? There isn't even some antique F-22 you could gas up to destroy the connection link between the ship and the drill? Even before that, you mean to tell me that Vulcan doesn't have some ship it can just fly into the stupid thing? "Oh hey, that ship that obliterated a Starfleet vessel is back, and it's decided to start digging ominously. Let's see how this plays out".

    Also, how the hell did Tyler Perry's Madea get promoted to Commander of Starfleet? What the hell?

    As for video games, any game where shotgun blasts send the enemy flown back about 50 feet is pretty ridiculous. Either that or every protagonist weighs approximately 800 pounds.

    jonny_digital on
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Not a video game, but instead from the new Star Trek movie:
    I really got sucked out of the movie by the plot device at the end that the Romulans had shut down all of Earth's defenses with some code provided by an Admiral. Seriously? It shuts down EVERYTHING? There isn't even some antique F-22 you could gas up to destroy the connection link between the ship and the drill? Even before that, you mean to tell me that Vulcan doesn't have some ship it can just fly into the stupid thing? "Oh hey, that ship that obliterated a Starfleet vessel is back, and it's decided to start digging ominously. Let's see how this plays out".

    Also, how the hell did Tyler Perry's Madea get promoted to Commander of Starfleet? What the hell?

    As for video games, any game where shotgun blasts send the enemy flown back about 50 feet is pretty ridiculous. Either that or every protagonist weighs approximately 800 pounds.

    I havn't seen the film, but implausibly stupid 'oh noes defenses are down' plot devices like that do tick me off. Seriously, they shut down an entire planet's defenses?!

    Ed321 on
  • JerikTelorianJerikTelorian Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Yeah, I wasn't aiming the second criticism at Japanese devs specifically. As for the tank thing, I think the easiest explanation is that it just fits the theme of how the Soviet Union is generally portrayed in U.S./Europe v USSR settings - an oppressive behemoth slowly but steadily grinding Europe beneath its heels etc. etc. Russian tanks are usually drawn/animated as if their main purpose is to run over your house (IIRC, virtually all games/films adhering to this trope have at least one scene of a Russian tank flattening a building). Even in End War, which is set in the future, the Russian tanks have slightly better health and are dubbed "Ogres" or something :P Like you say, in reality Soviet tanks were built with Sov. military doctrine in mind, which emphasized speed and mobility. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of Cold War tanks, but I'm pretty sure the only thing games like Red Alert get right about the differences between Sov/NATO MBTs is that the heaviest Soviet tanks' main cannons often (though not always) had slightly better penetration (i.e. higher damage when simplified in game terms), whilst the American tanks were more technologically advanced (even when they're chaper or weaker in the games, they usually have special abilities of some kind).

    I'm only repeating what I've been told, though. Anyway, I prefer the way Soviet technology is depicted in slightly-fantastical scenarios. It's not like depicting the USSR as a huge bastard is particularly unfair.

    It's actually amusing how this has worked out, since in WWII, all of the Allies concentrated on smaller, faster, more maneuverable tanks (e.g. Sherman) than the Nazis, who kept building bigger, more heavily armored tanks (e.g. Panzer, which was great, then the Tiger, which was good but bulky, and the King Tiger, which was strong but massive and clunky).

    JerikTelorian on
    SteamID -- JerikTelorian
    XBL: LiquidSnake2061
    Shade wrote: »
    Anyone notice how some things (mattresses and the copy machines in Highrise) are totally impenetrable? A steel wall, yeah that makes sense, but bullets should obliterate copy machines.

    I don't know about you, but I always buy a bullet proof printer. Its a lot more expensive, but I think the advantages are apparent.
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Yeah, I wasn't aiming the second criticism at Japanese devs specifically. As for the tank thing, I think the easiest explanation is that it just fits the theme of how the Soviet Union is generally portrayed in U.S./Europe v USSR settings - an oppressive behemoth slowly but steadily grinding Europe beneath its heels etc. etc. Russian tanks are usually drawn/animated as if their main purpose is to run over your house (IIRC, virtually all games/films adhering to this trope have at least one scene of a Russian tank flattening a building). Even in End War, which is set in the future, the Russian tanks have slightly better health and are dubbed "Ogres" or something :P Like you say, in reality Soviet tanks were built with Sov. military doctrine in mind, which emphasized speed and mobility. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of Cold War tanks, but I'm pretty sure the only thing games like Red Alert get right about the differences between Sov/NATO MBTs is that the heaviest Soviet tanks' main cannons often (though not always) had slightly better penetration (i.e. higher damage when simplified in game terms), whilst the American tanks were more technologically advanced (even when they're chaper or weaker in the games, they usually have special abilities of some kind).

    I'm only repeating what I've been told, though. Anyway, I prefer the way Soviet technology is depicted in slightly-fantastical scenarios. It's not like depicting the USSR as a huge bastard is particularly unfair.

    It's actually amusing how this has worked out, since in WWII, all of the Allies concentrated on smaller, faster, more maneuverable tanks (e.g. Sherman) than the Nazis, who kept building bigger, more heavily armored tanks (e.g. Panzer, which was great, then the Tiger, which was good but bulky, and the King Tiger, which was strong but massive and clunky).

    A number of prototype panzer designs practically constitute self-parody. For a taste, here's an idea of the intended scale of the P-1000 and P-1500 "Landkreuzer" models:

    diebl_87_p1000-005.jpg

    P1500_Monster.gif

    Sadly, the designs never left the drawing board.

    Ed321 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Yeah, I wasn't aiming the second criticism at Japanese devs specifically. As for the tank thing, I think the easiest explanation is that it just fits the theme of how the Soviet Union is generally portrayed in U.S./Europe v USSR settings - an oppressive behemoth slowly but steadily grinding Europe beneath its heels etc. etc. Russian tanks are usually drawn/animated as if their main purpose is to run over your house (IIRC, virtually all games/films adhering to this trope have at least one scene of a Russian tank flattening a building). Even in End War, which is set in the future, the Russian tanks have slightly better health and are dubbed "Ogres" or something :P Like you say, in reality Soviet tanks were built with Sov. military doctrine in mind, which emphasized speed and mobility. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of Cold War tanks, but I'm pretty sure the only thing games like Red Alert get right about the differences between Sov/NATO MBTs is that the heaviest Soviet tanks' main cannons often (though not always) had slightly better penetration (i.e. higher damage when simplified in game terms), whilst the American tanks were more technologically advanced (even when they're chaper or weaker in the games, they usually have special abilities of some kind).

    I'm only repeating what I've been told, though. Anyway, I prefer the way Soviet technology is depicted in slightly-fantastical scenarios. It's not like depicting the USSR as a huge bastard is particularly unfair.

    It's actually amusing how this has worked out, since in WWII, all of the Allies concentrated on smaller, faster, more maneuverable tanks (e.g. Sherman) than the Nazis, who kept building bigger, more heavily armored tanks (e.g. Panzer, which was great, then the Tiger, which was good but bulky, and the King Tiger, which was strong but massive and clunky).

    It's all got some ironic value. Because, as we all know that the USSR never made any sort of scientific contribution.

    Because the first living being sent into space was a dog named Rover, launched aboard the satellite 'Freedom II'. Anything else is communist propaganda.

    And while we're on the subject, we were doing those Iranians a favor by bringing back the Shah! Ever see Return of the King? IT'S LIKE THAT, DAMN IT! We had to protect ourselves, the Reds were putting stuff in our drinking water! Love it or leave it, you dirty hippies!

    Whoa...sorry there. College in the Biblebelt flashback. Back to reality.

    To game developer stereotype's credit, the USSR did use larger cannons historically, going back to the T-34/85, which, I think, had a larger (though not necessarily more effective--I guess it was though) gun than any American or British tank produced in similar quantities (I know there were really upgunned Sherman 'Fireflies', but I don't think those were very common among the sheer number of Shermans built?). The early Cold War Soviet tanks--the T-54, etc., left impressions on the West for precisely this reason (they were still much smaller than, say, the Tiger I or the Tiger II--so they weren't impressive size wise). I will leave the issue of effectiveness up to the gun/war nuts, however, who are better informed. The developers also have a problem from the western perspective--it would suggest that the US, the UK, Germany, France just cannot build a half-decent tank to save their lives, though they will polish it like a 1978 Corvette right before it gets blown up. Obviously, this isn't the case either.

    On the issue of micro-management, I would certainly hope the US Army (and other armed forces) didn't center around the doctrine of "Soldier stands still, waiting for specific instructions on where to move, unless someone shoots him first". If anyone's ever played the fantastic Close Combat series of games (not including that bizarre one that had to do with the Marines, I think), I think this is well handled--squads need specific orders (i.e. where to go), but you can order them to seize a building on the other side of the map, and they'll fight and protect themselves--and take the route with the most cover--along the way. If necessary, they will flee (on their own--and they might not listen to you if they are really scared).

    Close Combat had some fantastic AI, for the time anyway--there was something like six (maybe eight) mental states for each soldier in a squad (from "heroic"--insane with rage--to panicked to cowardly, etc.,) and AI would even salvage weapons from corpses if they were firing beyond their ranges of running low on ammo.

    Tank control was similar, though not as impressive--you sometimes had to manually guide a tank through, and if you were really desperate, you had to manually order its target, but otherwise, it worked quite well.

    I miss those games.
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Sadly, the designs never left the drawing board.

    To quote My Tank is Fight--it's a damn shame, since building one of those things might have ended the war a few weeks earlier, and it would have been one hot damn museum ticket in Moscow or Washington.

    "Tuesday: 2,000-ton German 'Landkreuzer' Exhibit! Tickets on sale!"

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As for video games, any game where shotgun blasts send the enemy flown back about 50 feet is pretty ridiculous.
    Even worse is when shotguns are useless unless you are shaking hands with enemies.

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    As for video games, any game where shotgun blasts send the enemy flown back about 50 feet is pretty ridiculous.
    Even worse is when shotguns are useless unless you are shaking hands with enemies.

    Apparently, the 'UZI' submachinegun, in real life, is very accurate. Whereas, in games, it is often the "spray and pray" weapon.

    Though this could be explained by saying most games use it in a very compact form, and have the player using one in each hand. Again, I defer to gun nuts. o_O

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I'm not even sure if the Landkreuzer was ever used in any Nazi-themed videogames, like that BF1942 expansion. Come on devs, I want my battleship-on-tracks.

    Ed321 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'm not even sure if the Landkreuzer was ever used in any Nazi-themed videogames, like that BF1942 expansion. Come on devs, I want my battleship-on-tracks.

    I think it appeared in a game that was based on a German Invasion of the East Coast of the US, after a victory in Europe.

    Winston Churchill, apparently, died in a car accident (much to the relief, I would assume, of millions of Indian people), leading to a different timeline. Because, you know, he was the Luke Skywalker/Obi-Wan Kenobi of the British Empire. "Help us Winston Churchill, you're our only hope!"

    Apparently, the game sucked. Which is unfortunate, because the thing itself is pretty badass-looking.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • JerikTelorianJerikTelorian Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    JerikTelorian on
    SteamID -- JerikTelorian
    XBL: LiquidSnake2061
    Shade wrote: »
    Anyone notice how some things (mattresses and the copy machines in Highrise) are totally impenetrable? A steel wall, yeah that makes sense, but bullets should obliterate copy machines.

    I don't know about you, but I always buy a bullet proof printer. Its a lot more expensive, but I think the advantages are apparent.
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Lol no, I couldn't even put together Warhammer models when I was a kid. The second image used to be on wikipedia, the the model I just found on either a German or Chinese forum by typing "Landkreuzer" into GIS.

    Ed321 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Yeah. I maintain that Close Combat III: The Russian Front was the best, despite its slightly misleading name, with the company/unit system and the scope of the game. But tanks would still get stuck a third of the way to their destination, either mired, or because they couldn't calculate their way around a building. The later is not very realistic, but at least they'd tell you.

    Plus, the game had persistent vehicle wrecks from earlier battles, so you'd run into a big tank corpse you didn't know was there. Would be nice if you could push it out of the way though....

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Men of War is basically Close Combat with scaled down ranges.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Men of War is basically Close Combat with scaled down ranges.

    I've been meaning to play that. So far, I've mostly just played various Company of Heroes mods than aim more for realism. They make up for their lack of depth by their sheer scale and fantastic visuals.

    Gotta try out MoW though.

    The one thing I miss about Close Combat, though, was the sheer level of humanity in the game. Every soldier had a name, a specialty, and various degrees of intelligence, cunning, skill, bravery, and a number of things that could determine his behavior. I for one became emotionally attached to my Fallschirmjager Squads, who'd fought with me for a dozen operations, and I'd given the Knight's Cross to. I didn't want to send them to their deaths, because there'd always be that thought of writing Frau Meuller a letter than her son is coming back in multiple boxes because I'd accidentally clicked next to a hidden Soviet Tank.

    So many needless deaths....O_o

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • freakish lightfreakish light Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Kastanj wrote: »
    No one has said this yet, I think.

    Taking out a magazine, replacing it, somehow not losing out on any unspent rounds. I'm afraid instant arithmetical satisfaction requiring bullet teleporting and instant refilling of cartridges and mags is not exactly a priority for arms manufacturers. A HUD I can understand but I can't think of one current FPS that actually has your unspent bullets not returning to the very large and very heavy pool of bullets you carry around.

    Also, grenades being iffy at a reasonably close distance, even indoors. My knowledge of martial matters and boomy things in general is limited because I didn't exactly savor military service, but one thing I do know is that without decent cover there is no way you can be in an average corridor with an average grenade and not only get fragged silly and deafened - the blast of the damn thing will feel as if a brick wall is passing through you, brick molecules phasing through your own, much softer lattices.

    Didn't King Kong do this? This pissed me off because I reload out of habit. It's bad enough I'm surrounded by dinosaurs!

    Infernal.

    I kept wondering why I was running out of bullets so fast because I reload constantly by force of habit.

    freakish light on
  • JerikTelorianJerikTelorian Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Kastanj wrote: »
    No one has said this yet, I think.

    Taking out a magazine, replacing it, somehow not losing out on any unspent rounds. I'm afraid instant arithmetical satisfaction requiring bullet teleporting and instant refilling of cartridges and mags is not exactly a priority for arms manufacturers. A HUD I can understand but I can't think of one current FPS that actually has your unspent bullets not returning to the very large and very heavy pool of bullets you carry around.

    Also, grenades being iffy at a reasonably close distance, even indoors. My knowledge of martial matters and boomy things in general is limited because I didn't exactly savor military service, but one thing I do know is that without decent cover there is no way you can be in an average corridor with an average grenade and not only get fragged silly and deafened - the blast of the damn thing will feel as if a brick wall is passing through you, brick molecules phasing through your own, much softer lattices.

    Didn't King Kong do this? This pissed me off because I reload out of habit. It's bad enough I'm surrounded by dinosaurs!

    Infernal.

    I kept wondering why I was running out of bullets so fast because I reload constantly by force of habit.

    Someone had mentioned BF1942 earlier -- BF2 does this, as well. I don't know how many times I only had one magazine because I shot 4 times and reloaded, tossing a nearly full mag away.

    JerikTelorian on
    SteamID -- JerikTelorian
    XBL: LiquidSnake2061
    Shade wrote: »
    Anyone notice how some things (mattresses and the copy machines in Highrise) are totally impenetrable? A steel wall, yeah that makes sense, but bullets should obliterate copy machines.

    I don't know about you, but I always buy a bullet proof printer. Its a lot more expensive, but I think the advantages are apparent.
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Men of War is basically Close Combat with scaled down ranges.

    I've been meaning to play that. So far, I've mostly just played various Company of Heroes mods than aim more for realism. They make up for their lack of depth by their sheer scale and fantastic visuals.

    Gotta try out MoW though.

    The one thing I miss about Close Combat, though, was the sheer level of humanity in the game. Every soldier had a name, a specialty, and various degrees of intelligence, cunning, skill, bravery, and a number of things that could determine his behavior. I for one became emotionally attached to my Fallschirmjager Squads, who'd fought with me for a dozen operations, and I'd given the Knight's Cross to. I didn't want to send them to their deaths, because there'd always be that thought of writing Frau Meuller a letter than her son is coming back in multiple boxes because I'd accidentally clicked next to a hidden Soviet Tank.

    So many needless deaths....O_o

    Ever single soldier in Men of War has a name, an inventory, and different skills with various weapons.

    edit: a FUCKTON of games take away the bullets in a magazine if you reload before it's empty. Red Orchestra even lets you save the partially empty mags for later use.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I might kill for a new Close Combat game.

    Agreed on the tank points though -- I only had A Bridge Too Far, but trying to navigate tanks through some of those cities is hard enough tactically, and could be compounded by the wacky AI. Sometimes, though, it's eally on-the-spot with targets and the like.

    EDIT: Ed, you are awesome for those pics. Is that your model?

    Men of War is basically Close Combat with scaled down ranges.

    I've been meaning to play that. So far, I've mostly just played various Company of Heroes mods than aim more for realism. They make up for their lack of depth by their sheer scale and fantastic visuals.

    Gotta try out MoW though.

    The one thing I miss about Close Combat, though, was the sheer level of humanity in the game. Every soldier had a name, a specialty, and various degrees of intelligence, cunning, skill, bravery, and a number of things that could determine his behavior. I for one became emotionally attached to my Fallschirmjager Squads, who'd fought with me for a dozen operations, and I'd given the Knight's Cross to. I didn't want to send them to their deaths, because there'd always be that thought of writing Frau Meuller a letter than her son is coming back in multiple boxes because I'd accidentally clicked next to a hidden Soviet Tank.

    So many needless deaths....O_o

    Ever single soldier in Men of War has a name, an inventory, and different skills with various weapons.

    edit: a FUCKTON of games take away the bullets in a magazine if you reload before it's empty. Red Orchestra even lets you save the partially empty mags for later use.

    You've sold me. Gotta try it.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    God, RTS AI is some the worst I have ever seen. Particularly anything in the C&C series, although AoE and EE are practically just as bad.

    I think the single worst example is the hover tanks from C&C Tiberium-something-or-other. The entire point of the unit is that it is a tank that is also pretty fast and maneuverable. But does it ever use this fact? No. If I tell them to go attack something, they will stand there and shoot at it and then die because their armor is god-awful. You have to manually keep telling them to move places in order for them to actually evade fire. FUCK!

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Sign In or Register to comment.