244 réponses à ce sujet

[kane442]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

kane442 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

"Shut up, it's magic" is for those who don't like to work out their celebral cortex.
A finely crafted world works like a well-oiled machine. Everything has it's place.

Unnecessary explanations and things are avoided.

Lighter materials? We have iron. steel. Known materials. Or are they different in that world? If they are, why keep the same names?

And lastly, why use imparactical (shape/size) things?
"It's magic" doesn't work as an explanation there (unless you assume magic makes everyone stupid).

that sword isnt much longer than a claymore ( 55inches to over 60 about 5.6 feet ) and thats a female hawk ...most female are from 5.3 to 5.9 tall

And how thick is a Scottish claymore again?

*Here's a nice greatsword:

about 3-4 inches

[Yrkoon]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

kane442 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

"Shut up, it's magic" is for those who don't like to work out their celebral cortex.
A finely crafted world works like a well-oiled machine. Everything has it's place.

Unnecessary explanations and things are avoided.

Lighter materials? We have iron. steel. Known materials. Or are they different in that world? If they are, why keep the same names?

And lastly, why use imparactical (shape/size) things?
"It's magic" doesn't work as an explanation there (unless you assume magic makes everyone stupid).

that sword isnt much longer than a claymore ( 55inches to over 60 about 5.6 feet ) and thats a female hawk ...most female are from 5.3 to 5.9 tall

And how thick is a Scottish claymore again?

How thick is Lady Hawk's sword again?

[kane442]

Yrkoon wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

kane442 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

"Shut up, it's magic" is for those who don't like to work out their celebral cortex.
A finely crafted world works like a well-oiled machine. Everything has it's place.

Unnecessary explanations and things are avoided.

Lighter materials? We have iron. steel. Known materials. Or are they different in that world? If they are, why keep the same names?

And lastly, why use imparactical (shape/size) things?
"It's magic" doesn't work as an explanation there (unless you assume magic makes everyone stupid).

that sword isnt much longer than a claymore ( 55inches to over 60 about 5.6 feet ) and thats a female hawk ...most female are from 5.3 to 5.9 tall

And how thick is a Scottish claymore again?

How thick is Lady Hawk's sword again?

about 4 or 5 ..its not wider than her hand and females have smaller hands

[Gabriel S.]

Yrkoon wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

kane442 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Oloos wrote...

In french, we, roleplayers, have a acronym for these "exagerations". It's "TGCM", for "Ta gueule ! C'est magique !". In English, it will be "Shut Up ! It's Magic !".

So, imagine these are magically altered swords to be lignter than they should, or in special lighters materials and you should be good.

Fantasy worlds are fantasty worlds, fields with magic, strange creatures, etc etc... You can imagine anything in them, that's the main interest in fact.

"Shut up, it's magic" is for those who don't like to work out their celebral cortex.
A finely crafted world works like a well-oiled machine. Everything has it's place.

Unnecessary explanations and things are avoided.

Lighter materials? We have iron. steel. Known materials. Or are they different in that world? If they are, why keep the same names?

And lastly, why use imparactical (shape/size) things?
"It's magic" doesn't work as an explanation there (unless you assume magic makes everyone stupid).

that sword isnt much longer than a claymore ( 55inches to over 60 about 5.6 feet ) and thats a female hawk ...most female are from 5.3 to 5.9 tall

And how thick is a Scottish claymore again?

How thick is Lady Hawk's sword again?

Compare with this:

*How the heck do you embed videos from youtube? A-HA!

Modifié par Gabriel Stelinski, 15 février 2011 - 03:42 .

[kane442]

also the first 6-8 inches are blunt ...ment to be used as a grip...but she isnt useing it that way

Modifié par kane442, 15 février 2011 - 03:49 .

[Yrkoon]

so not much of a difference... or at least not enough to spawn several pages of "it's not realistic!" gripes on multiple threads.



Or maybe it is, considering the levels of hyperbole that some critics love to spew on this forum.

[kane442]

that looks fairly close to hers ......he said that one was 55inches as i said they ranged upward of 60 ....most weapons were made for the user so taler man = longer clamore my claymore is longer than my GF (mine is 65 inches)

edit : i had to get a measuring tape hehe......i was a lil off my is a bit longer than 55 ...oops

Modifié par kane442, 15 février 2011 - 03:49 .

[Gabriel S.]

kane442 wrote...

that looks fairly close to hers ......he said that one was 55inches as i said they ranged upward of 60 ....most weapons were made for the user so taler man = longer clamore my claymore is longer than my GF (mine is also 55 inches)

Granted it doesn't necessarily have to be a claymore, it could also be  a german zweihander, but unless I'm mistaken that is handled a bit differently. Though I do remember seeing claymores that had a handle just after the hilt proper.

[Gabriel S.]

Can a dev say if there's a greatsword in DA2 that looks like this one:



Pleeeaase! Pretty pleeeaase!:innocent:

Modifié par Gabriel Stelinski, 15 février 2011 - 11:03 .

[Yrkoon]

Why would any self respecting Dev confirm or deny the existance of something so mundane?

[LPPrince]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

Can a dev say if there's a greatsword in DA2 that looks like this one:



Pleeeaase! Pretty pleeeaase!:innocent:

Damn it, now I'm wondering where the hell Donald's trousers are.

[Gabriel S.]

Yrkoon wrote...

Why would any self respecting Dev confirm or deny the existance of something so mundane?

To satisfy my curiositeh.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yrkoon wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

My response to that is my opinion, which is grounded in reality and physics.

Opinions grounded in reality and physics really have no business in a discussion about a fantasy game, since neither one is  a required element in an epic fantasy.  It would be like me going to the GTA boards and bashing GTA because it has cars, and  everyone knows that there are no cars in Thedas.

But I digress, wasn't I responding to Lotion's post?

Which is bollocks, because fantasy IS groundedi nreality. Thhkn about all of hte fantasy worlds from books like A Song of Ice and Fire or LOTR...

Do they have gravity? Yes.
Does gravity exist in reality? Yes.

Do popele eat? Yes.
Do poeple eat in reality? Yes.

Does friction exist? Yes.
Does it exist in reality? Yes.

Does it have swords? Yes.
Do swords exist in reality? Yes.

Does it have dragon? Yes.
Do dragons exist in reality? No.

See, when I talked about fantasy adding to reality, I wasn't kidding. Fantasy uses elements that exist in realty and adds fantastical elements to it - like undead, magic, elves, dwarves.
It's not divorced from reality. No, a good fantasy setting uses the reality to make it's fantasy seem more believable, more plausible. Not all fantasy is equal - some fantasy setting and more believable than others.

There is a reason LOTR is a more believable, immersive move than Dungeons and Dragons are. On a subconcious level, it feel more real - from dialogue, magic being sublter, acting and dialogue, to design.

This is similar. Swords exist in real life. humans do too. We know how both function and perform.
Changing things we know from reality without any explanation or NEED is a faliure of the setting.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Jaduggar wrote...

You ignore the question once more. Why?
Your responses all claim that you are unable to comprehend what I've been saying.

Whatever, I'll state again what I said in my first post in this thread:

"A sword of whatever dimensions would mostly be impractical in reality due to its weight (for all I know); in DA2, however, the combat is much more exaggerated than reality--just as backflips are now a tactical battle move, weight will factor into (most likely) very little.

Doesn't it stand to reason that the sword could still be efficient in this world?"

I understand the sword is impractical in this world.
But in a fantastical setting where combat permits backflips and weight means little, how are the dimensions of the sword in question too unbelievable?

--And again, your gun example exists the property of a straw man fallacy. You're exaggerating the situation and taking it out of context, but this is irrelevant to our argument in general. If you still refuse to believe this, then I won't care to make further arguments--

Do two wrongs make a right?

Go read a Dragon Age novel. Look how the battels are described there. There will be no backflips and swords of super-collosal size. THAT is the setting.

The art direction and combat-animations in the game are overblown to the point of absurdity. I ask you where do you draw the line? What if the sword was literaly the size of the house? What if it was so big that it's point went 2 meters into the ground? That when you walk around, you're ploughing the land, with farmer walking after you throwing seeds into the earth?
Hey, it's fantasy. It's magic. Those two are excuses FOR THE LAZY.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yrkoon wrote...

so not much of a difference... or at least not enough to spawn several pages of "it's not realistic!" gripes on multiple threads.

Or maybe it is, considering the levels of hyperbole that some critics love to spew on this forum.

Not much of a differense? Are you blind man?

The difference in thinckness, width and overall blade geomerty is huge....as it was with DA:O swords.

Maybe if you ever held a real sword you might understand this.
What I should do is make a few comparison images from the model editor and images of real swords, then yo'd see just how big the difference is.  But I don't have DA:O on my laptop....

[Yrkoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

My response to that is my opinion, which is grounded in reality and physics.

Opinions grounded in reality and physics really have no business in a discussion about a fantasy game, since neither one is  a required element in an epic fantasy.  It would be like me going to the GTA boards and bashing GTA because it has cars, and  everyone knows that there are no cars in Thedas.

But I digress, wasn't I responding to Lotion's post?

Which is bollocks, because fantasy IS groundedi nreality.

<sigh>


The dictionary it is, then.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/fantasy

FANTASY noun[/i] \\\\\\\\ˈfan-tə-sē, -zē\\\\\\\\



1 obsolete : hallucination

2: fancy; especially : the free play of creative imagination

3  a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a. a fanciful design or invention b.  a chimerical or fantastic notion c. fantasia  d.  imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters —called also fantasy fiction

4  caprice

5 : the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images[ in response to psychological need ; also[/i] :[/b] a mental image or a series of mental images (as a daydream) so created

And even your silly examples aren't really examples at all, since there's no requirement that they exist whatsoever.  For example:

Do they have gravity? Yes.
Does gravity exist in reality? Yes.

Gravity is not a requirement in any Fantasy setting.  In fact, many fantasy settings use made up theories to explain what we perceive as gravity, be it  "the weave", or "angels pushing down on us" or  The gods have decreed that all mortals must shoulder weight.  (note:  and it is fantasy creatures which  operate completely outside any laws of gravity.  Ever watch the road runner cartoons? )

Do popele eat? Yes.
Do poeple eat in reality? Yes.

In fact, eating is not  a requirement at all in ANY fantasy  CRPG I've ever played,  including dragon age.  Neither is sh**ting or pissing.  Could you have come up with a Worse example here?  I think not.  lol

Does friction exist? Yes.
Does it exist in reality? Yes.

Does friction exist in DA:O?  Nope.

Does it have swords? Yes.
Do swords exist in reality? Yes.

Does a Fantasy have to have swords?  Nope.

Does it have dragon? Yes.
Do dragons exist in reality? No.

Are dragons a requirement of a fantasy?  if  a fantasy  doesn't have dragons, then does  it mean that it's  NOT a fantasy?

See where your argument is going?  Anything can be done in a fantasy.   There are Zero restrictions. Zero Constrictions.  If a fantasy setting happens to be based on reality, then we'd simply call it a reality-based Fantasy.  But Fantasy need not be based on any such thing.  Duh.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 février 2011 - 11:57 .

[Yrkoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

so not much of a difference... or at least not enough to spawn several pages of "it's not realistic!" gripes on multiple threads.

Or maybe it is, considering the levels of hyperbole that some critics love to spew on this forum.

Not much of a differense? Are you blind man?

The difference in thinckness, width and overall blade geomerty is huge....as it was with DA:O swords.

Maybe if you ever held a real sword you might understand this.
What I should do is make a few comparison images from the model editor and images of real swords, then yo'd see just how big the difference is.  But I don't have DA:O on my laptop....

Ok,  I've had enough.   I will now call you out for your grotesquely dishonest debating.

Please  provide the Exact  dimensions for the Sword that lady hawke is wielding.  I want precise measurements, in centemeters or inches,  of length, width and circumfrence, from tip to pommel.  Your ENTIRE argument  is based on a comparison  and thus requires  this information.  If you don't have these numbers   (which you don't) then you're just talking out of your ass.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 février 2011 - 12:00 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
The dictionary it is, then.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/fantasy
[/quote]

Where does it say that it doesn't contain any realistic elements? TI doesn't.


[quote]
And even your silly examples aren't really examples at all, since there's no requirement that they exist whatsoever.  For example:
[quote]
Do they have gravity? Yes.
Does gravity exist in reality? Yes.[/quote]
Gravity is not a requirement in any Fantasy setting.  In fact, many fantasy settings use made up theories to explain what we perceive as gravity, be it  "the weave", or "angels pushing down on us" or  The gods have decreed that all mortals must shoulder weight.  (note:  and it is fantasy creatures which defy the laws of gravity.  Ever watch the road runner cartoons? [/quote]

FANTASY creatures may defy gravity. Humans in general aren't that, and when they do that they don't do that by default. It requires active effort (like spells).
Not to mention that without science and theory of gravity, gravity is explained differently by the populace, but it still ends up functioning the same.


[quote]
[quote]
Do popele eat? Yes.
Do poeple eat in reality? Yes.[/quote]
In fact, eating is not  a requirement at all in ANY fantasy  CRPG I've ever played  including dragon age.  Neither is sh**ting or pissing.  Could you have come up with a Worse example?  I think not.  lol[/qutoe]

So the prisoner wasn't hungry and didn't ask for a meal?
Nan wasn't making supper in the kitchen? Wynne and Oghren don't drink?

I must have missed that...NO WAIT - I HAVEN'T!



[quote]
[quote]
Does friction exist? Yes.
Does it exist in reality? Yes.[/quote]
Does friction exist in DA:O?  Nope.

[quote]Does it have swords? Yes.
Do swords exist in reality? Yes.[/quote]
Does a Fantasy have to have swords?  Nope.

[quote]Does it have dragon? Yes.
Do dragons exist in reality? No.[/quote]
are dragons a requirement of a fantasy?  if  a fantasy  doesn't have dragons, then does  it mean that it's  NOT a fantasy?
[/quote]

An example of a fantastical element. What that element is is not releant. Could be elves. Magic. Dragons. Unobtanium. A FTL drive.
Fantasy has to have fantastical elements to really be classified as fantasy.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yrkoon wrote...
Ok,  I've had enough.   I will now call you out for your grotesquely dishonest debating.

Please  provide the Exact  dimensions for the Sword that lady hawke is wielding.  I want precise measurements, in centemeters or inches,  of length, width and circumfrencve from tip to pommel.  Your ENTIRE argument  is based on a comparison  and thus requires  this information.  If you don't have these numbers   (which you don't) then you're just talking out of your ass.

There's nothing dishonest about my debating.
The swords are VISIBLY too big to the naked eye...and that one Lady Hawke is carrying is one of the smaller swords. You've seen the monster Carver is carrying?

If you want precise comparisons...I can only create them over the weekend. If anyone else would care to use the model viewer to post top, front and side views, be my guest.
But they are not necessary, as Origin swords were too big, wich re-size and new models mods and complainst prove well enough. DA2 swords are the same..too big.

[Yrkoon]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
The dictionary it is, then.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/fantasy
[/quote]

Where does it say that it doesn't contain any realistic elements? TI doesn't.[/quote]
It doesn't have to.  No one here is arguing that a fantasy MUST be void of all elements  of reality. 

Reading comprehension, boy.



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]
And even your silly examples aren't really examples at all, since there's no requirement that they exist whatsoever.  For example:
[quote]
Do they have gravity? Yes.
Does gravity exist in reality? Yes.[/quote]
Gravity is not a requirement in any Fantasy setting.  In fact, many fantasy settings use made up theories to explain what we perceive as gravity, be it  "the weave", or "angels pushing down on us" or  The gods have decreed that all mortals must shoulder weight.  (note:  and it is fantasy creatures which defy the laws of gravity.  Ever watch the road runner cartoons? [/quote]

FANTASY creatures may defy gravity. [/quote]
Or, gravity may be non-existant outright.  Adventures in the Astral Plane  (which are fantasy) do not contain any such thing as gravity.


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]
[quote]
Do popele eat? Yes.
Do poeple eat in reality? Yes.[/quote]
In fact, eating is not  a requirement at all in ANY fantasy  CRPG I've ever played  including dragon age.  Neither is sh**ting or pissing.  Could you have come up with a Worse example?  I think not.  lol[/quote]

So the prisoner wasn't hungry and didn't ask for a meal?[/quote]
Eating is not a requirement in DA:O or any other fantasy RPG that bioware has ever created.     One can completely skip that quest in DAO, as it is.... NOT a Requirement.


[quote]
Nan wasn't making supper in the kitchen? Wynne and Oghren don't drink?[/quote]
The existance of Food  in DA:O does not pre-suppose that it is a requirement of gameplay.  I can go  an entire  game without Feeding Wynne or Oghren.  And I can tell Nan to go f**k herself.

Do we have to break out the dictionary and teach you the defintion of REQUIREMENT, too?

[quote]I must have missed that...NO WAIT - I HAVEN'T!
[/quote]
Oh, I'd say you're missing the point and all semblance of understanding by about a thousand miles, yes.


[quote]
An example of a fantastical element. What that element is is not releant. Could be elves. Magic. Dragons. Unobtanium. A FTL drive.
Fantasy has to have fantastical elements to really be classified as fantasy.[/quote]
Incoherant babbling now.  I doubt YOU even know what the hell you're saying here.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 février 2011 - 12:17 .

[Yrkoon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Ok,  I've had enough.   I will now call you out for your grotesquely dishonest debating.

Please  provide the Exact  dimensions for the Sword that lady hawke is wielding.  I want precise measurements, in centemeters or inches,  of length, width and circumfrencve from tip to pommel.  Your ENTIRE argument  is based on a comparison  and thus requires  this information.  If you don't have these numbers   (which you don't) then you're just talking out of your ass.

There's nothing dishonest about my debating.
The swords are VISIBLY too big to the naked eye...and that one Lady Hawke is carrying is one of the smaller swords. You've seen the monster Carver is carrying?

If you want precise comparisons...I can only create them over the weekend. If anyone else would care to use the model viewer to post top, front and side views, be my guest.
But they are not necessary, as Origin swords were too big, wich re-size and new models mods and complainst prove well enough. DA2 swords are the same..too big.

Then I'll wait till the weekend.  Until then, you're talking out of your ass about measurements you ADMIT you don't  even have.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 février 2011 - 12:16 .

[Jaduggar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Jaduggar wrote...

You ignore the question once more. Why?
Your responses all claim that you are unable to comprehend what I've been saying.

Whatever, I'll state again what I said in my first post in this thread:

"A sword of whatever dimensions would mostly be impractical in reality due to its weight (for all I know); in DA2, however, the combat is much more exaggerated than reality--just as backflips are now a tactical battle move, weight will factor into (most likely) very little.

Doesn't it stand to reason that the sword could still be efficient in this world?"

I understand the sword is impractical in this world.
But in a fantastical setting where combat permits backflips and weight means little, how are the dimensions of the sword in question too unbelievable?

--And again, your gun example exists the property of a straw man fallacy. You're exaggerating the situation and taking it out of context, but this is irrelevant to our argument in general. If you still refuse to believe this, then I won't care to make further arguments--

Do two wrongs make a right?

Go read a Dragon Age novel. Look how the battels are described there. There will be no backflips and swords of super-collosal size. THAT is the setting.

The art direction and combat-animations in the game are overblown to the point of absurdity. I ask you where do you draw the line? What if the sword was literaly the size of the house? What if it was so big that it's point went 2 meters into the ground? That when you walk around, you're ploughing the land, with farmer walking after you throwing seeds into the earth?
Hey, it's fantasy. It's magic. Those two are excuses FOR THE LAZY.

I would draw the line where it no longer fits with the aesthetic of the game.
It does.

There technically aren't any wrongs here.
Everything fits with what they have set up.

I'm not throwing down excuses of fantasy or magic. This is the artistic design of the game and everything we’ve seen fits.

You could argue that you don't like how the game has been designed, I suppose, but that would simply be your opinion and would be worthless to argue in a debate against the acceptable dimensions of a sword within the game.

Is this your issue?


EDIT: Watch out for another fallacy--
Just because certain aspects of the game are overblown, it doesn’t mean the aesthetic design of the game is “overblown.”
IE: There may be backflips in combat, therefore there could be swords the size of towers.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 16 février 2011 - 02:48 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
[quote]
[quote]
In fact, eating is not  a requirement at all in ANY fantasy  CRPG I've ever played  including dragon age.  Neither is sh**ting or pissing.  Could you have come up with a Worse example?  I think not.  lol[/quote]

So the prisoner wasn't hungry and didn't ask for a meal?[/quote]

Eating is not a requirement in DA:O or any other fantasy RPG that bioware has ever created.     One can completely skip that quest in DAO, as it is.... NOT a Requirement.[/quote]

Reading comprehension?
Eating is part of the setting, not a gameplay mechanic.



[quote]
[quote]
Nan wasn't making supper in the kitchen? Wynne and Oghren don't drink?[/quote]
The existance of Food  in DA:O does not pre-suppose that it is a requirement of gameplay.  I can go  an entire  game without Feeding Wynne or Oghren.  And I can tell Nan to go f**k herself.

Do we have to break out the dictionary and teach you the defintion of REQUIREMENT, too?[/quote]

While you're looking the dictionary, look up under "basic reasoning" and "comprehension".
You lack the two.



[quote]
Oh, I'd say you're missing the point and all semblance of understanding by about a thousand miles, yes.[/qutoe]

Give when you wrote above, the irony of that statemnt is amazing.



[quote]
[quote]
An example of a fantastical element. What that element is is not releant. Could be elves. Magic. Dragons. Unobtanium. A FTL drive.
Fantasy has to have fantastical elements to really be classified as fantasy.[/quote]
Incoherant babbling now.  I doubt YOU even know what the hell you're saying here.[/quote]

Well, that went over your head...by a few miles.
MY dear friend, you get far to bogged down in semantics and arguuing over dragon specificly to notice that it's not about dragons. Bigger picture... bigger picture.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 février 2011 - 03:23 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Jaduggar wrote...
I would draw the line where it no longer fits with the aesthetic of the game.
It does.[/quote]

Really? Everything is pretty muhc to scael - humans, body parts, buildings - everything EXCEPT the damn weapons. How the hall does that "fit". It stands out like a clown on an buisness meeting.

[quote]
I'm not throwing down excuses of fantasy or magic. This is the artistic design of the game and everything we’ve seen fits.[/quote]

The design is s***. Whoever made that choice made a very bad call.


[quote]
You could argue that you don't like how the game has been designed, I suppose, but that would simply be your opinion and would be worthless to argue in a debate against the acceptable dimensions of a sword within the game.
[/qutoe]

Everything can be debated. EVERYTHING. Everything has merits or flaw...EVERYTHING.
No exceptions.



[quote]
Just because certain aspects of the game are overblown, it doesn’t mean the aesthetic design of the game is “overblown.”
IE: There may be backflips in combat, therefore there could be swords the size of towers.[/quote]

No.

[Jaduggar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Really? Everything is pretty muhc to scael - humans, body parts, buildings - everything EXCEPT the damn weapons. How the hall does that "fit". It stands out like a clown on an buisness meeting.

First, let's stop with the exaggerations. They are almost always a bad thing to do--nothing but propaganda for bystanders.

Secondly, that's a very good argument, but the game does have some issues with dimensions and scale: you mention body parts, I respond with breasts. They are overdone, impractical, and exist only as a extraneous variable in reality. The heavier armor that we've seen should crush Hawke. Cups are nearly the size of heads.

This is only what I've seen from the couple of gameplay videos they've released--I'm sure there will be a ton more once I get to playing the game. All of these are design choices (except for the cups, I just don't think BioWare knows how to make cups) that follow the image of what they want their game to look like.

The design is s***. Whoever made that choice made a very bad call.

Be civil, now.

Everything can be debated. EVERYTHING. Everything has merits or flaw...EVERYTHING.
No exceptions.

P = P

No.

I think you may be saying "no" behind the logic of my example--which is good. That was an example of something you were close to arguing.

Modifié par Jaduggar, 16 février 2011 - 04:24 .