There was so much bull shit and confusion in reading and looking at the description of War I gave up. I couldnt keep track of what was what. Not Yahtzee's fault. That's just the only way to describe a terrible character.
I'm guessing since you're not down with the whole symbolism thing, you're also not too good with irony.ostro-whiskey said:Oh contraire, In Warhammer many parties have resorted to melee combat for whatever reason, so that is why it makes sense. I dont see any "symbolic contents" it seems to like like you're just trying to be conceited. Again you try to say that something in which you have claims is "incoherent and varied", you clearly do not realize the stupididty in this, as I have already pointed out that you have no standing to be able to make such a claim. Perhaps you need to choose your words more carefully.
I never said Fantasy is a liscence to do whatever you want, you are putting words in my mouth, I said the concept behind trying to find fault in the design and practicality of items in a Fantasy world is absolutely stupid.
I just voiced my opinion. I was simply offering a rebuttal to his opinion of the game. Am I out to change his mind? No. Nor would I want to. He is his own man. I was just trying to bring a bit of rationael to the forum. Snowball's chance in hell, I know. And I had no trouble finding him on the screen when the fighting got chaotic. Maybe you should have your eyes checked.Fronzel said:What is it with Yahtzee threads where half the posters say the exact same thing that doesn't actually have anything to do with the article?Myster XIII said:WALLOFTEXT
The problem with War's design is that it's ugly, silly, thoughtless, and most importantly, is difficult to locate in an on-screen clusterfuck. Who asked it to be "realistic"?
If you mean an irrational rationale then you sure succeeded. The exact opposite argument can be made using your "logic". This opposite argument is also what helps people suspend disbelief as others have said.Myster XIII said:I just voiced my opinion. I was simply offering a rebuttal to his opinion of the game. Am I out to change his mind? No. Nor would I want to. He is his own man. I was just trying to bring a bit of rationael to the forum. Snowball's chance in hell, I know. And I had no trouble finding him on the screen when the fighting got chaotic. Maybe you should have your eyes checked.Fronzel said:What is it with Yahtzee threads where half the posters say the exact same thing that doesn't actually have anything to do with the article?Myster XIII said:WALLOFTEXT
The problem with War's design is that it's ugly, silly, thoughtless, and most importantly, is difficult to locate in an on-screen clusterfuck. Who asked it to be "realistic"?
I don't think it is over analyzing things to say that War looks like a complete idiot. I'm having trouble even understanding why people argue that he wouldn't take off his armor when you could easily say that he doesn't even need his armor to begin with. Berserk has better armor designs than this game because the artist knows when to stop drawing. http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/berserk/images/b/be/Berserker03.jpg (Not the best shot but I couldn't find anything bigger.)Eversor said:This article givs me two types of reactions. One is agreement on TF2 character design. It's perfect, one of the best designs for a video game ever.
However the War thing... you're overanalyzing it. By a mile. I look at War, what do I see? A big, burly juggernaut-type dude with a huge sword and a powerfist (yes, it's a goddamn powerfist, THAT'S why it is so big). I have no doubts - if this guy landed on Earth, apocalypse would go down and no one would be able to stop this armored mass of destruction. He isn't supposed to take off his armor ever, why would the Horseman of Apocalypse ever do so? I imagine them being in stasis or something, waiting for their day to come, rather than sitting on their couch, drinking beer and watching reality TV, in which case their armor would indeed be impractical. But they don't. They are living weapons, nothing more. The bigger morality damage such weapon can inflict on the enemy, the more effect it has. I'd personally shit my pants when a guy like this trucked at me.
Oh my, I understood the character just by looking at him. Mission accomplished, no?
Really, Yahtzee is nitpicking. The game is SUPPOSED to be over the top comic book inspired fantasy. Will you rip on DMC and Bayonetta for their designs too? You sure could, but would that serve any purpose in games that are meant to be over the top in every way? The same thing is with nitpicking W40k. It's meant to be over the top, it's not meant to be taken very seriously, it's like that for the sake of fun. Also, the Space Marines use swords along with bolters not because they are supposed to be somewhat knightly, but moreso because it is more efficient when fighting foes that favor melee (which there are a metric ton in 40k).
You know, isn't there a reason why there are art galleries along with comic book stores, and not just one of them? Because people like variety. Variety is good. I can enjoy a well designed and practical looking characters like the TF2 cast (then again, they are just humans that have somewhat normal lives outside their mercenary work, so it's hardly a wonder that they look practical) just as much as I can enjoy an over the top masculine comic book powerfantasy such as Darksiders. Variety is the spice of life.
How can you claim to know the logic behind a fantasy concept. The fact that it is fantasy is indicative that our logic does not comply. We can safely assume that the guy from Darksiders is closer to a robot than a human, therefore you point is, once again, idiotic. You have yet to clarify what you meant by the "symbolic contents" of the armor, ofcoure its quite likely you were just talking out of your ass.Shamanic Rhythm said:I'm guessing since you're not down with the whole symbolism thing, you're also not too good with irony.ostro-whiskey said:Oh contraire, In Warhammer many parties have resorted to melee combat for whatever reason, so that is why it makes sense. I dont see any "symbolic contents" it seems to like like you're just trying to be conceited. Again you try to say that something in which you have claims is "incoherent and varied", you clearly do not realize the stupididty in this, as I have already pointed out that you have no standing to be able to make such a claim. Perhaps you need to choose your words more carefully.
I never said Fantasy is a liscence to do whatever you want, you are putting words in my mouth, I said the concept behind trying to find fault in the design and practicality of items in a Fantasy world is absolutely stupid.
It is not at all stupid to criticise the practicality of fantasy. You only achieve willing suspension of disbelief if you have coherent logic behind the fantastical concepts you introduce into the world. In literature, a plot resolution achieved through an external device is known as "deus ex machina", and it tends to alienate readers because if you establish boundaries with logical limits, you're expected to stay within them for a resolution. The same principle applies to the practicality of fantasy designs. If we see characters fighting with swords, we expect primitive combat governed by the laws of physics. If you break something like this and create a justification for it that doesn't fit coherently into the overall tenor of your fantasy world, it makes it harder for audiences to willingly suspend disbelief.
Uhh there is logic in every single fantasy story that there is. Only a fool tries to argue that our logic does not apply when our logic is applied to these worlds all the time.ostro-whiskey said:How can you claim to know the logic behind a fantasy concept. The fact that it is fantasy is indicative that our logic does not comply. We can safely assume that the guy from Darksiders is closer to a robot than a human, therefore you point is, once again, idiotic. You have yet to clarify what you meant by the "symbolic contents" of the armor, ofcoure its quite likely you were just talking out of your ass.Shamanic Rhythm said:I'm guessing since you're not down with the whole symbolism thing, you're also not too good with irony.ostro-whiskey said:Oh contraire, In Warhammer many parties have resorted to melee combat for whatever reason, so that is why it makes sense. I dont see any "symbolic contents" it seems to like like you're just trying to be conceited. Again you try to say that something in which you have claims is "incoherent and varied", you clearly do not realize the stupididty in this, as I have already pointed out that you have no standing to be able to make such a claim. Perhaps you need to choose your words more carefully.
I never said Fantasy is a liscence to do whatever you want, you are putting words in my mouth, I said the concept behind trying to find fault in the design and practicality of items in a Fantasy world is absolutely stupid.
It is not at all stupid to criticise the practicality of fantasy. You only achieve willing suspension of disbelief if you have coherent logic behind the fantastical concepts you introduce into the world. In literature, a plot resolution achieved through an external device is known as "deus ex machina", and it tends to alienate readers because if you establish boundaries with logical limits, you're expected to stay within them for a resolution. The same principle applies to the practicality of fantasy designs. If we see characters fighting with swords, we expect primitive combat governed by the laws of physics. If you break something like this and create a justification for it that doesn't fit coherently into the overall tenor of your fantasy world, it makes it harder for audiences to willingly suspend disbelief.
I think that comparison might be more than a joke.s69-5 said:Oh Snap!The Great JT said:By the look of things, Joe Madureira has been taking "art" lessons from Rob Liefeld.
Liefeld is the worst comic book artist to have ever been given a major comic book contract.
there should be a second head growing out of Caps shoulders
That design is dependent entirely on personal preference. I can't tell what exactly is that thing supposed to be in that picture. Is that a minion? A main villain? The antihero or hero? A statue? I honestly can't tell. What I can tell is that it's someone in a platemail suit. That's about it. Is it better than War? Eye of the Beholder, man. To me, it looks lacking, plain and rather fragile without any knowledge on the subject matter it is taken from.shadow skill said:I don't think it is over analyzing things to say that War looks like a complete idiot. I'm having trouble even understanding why people argue that he wouldn't take off his armor when you could easily say that he doesn't even need his armor to begin with. Berserk has better armor designs than this game because the artist knows when to stop drawing. http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/berserk/images/b/be/Berserker03.jpg (Not the best shot but I couldn't find anything bigger.)
Bayonetta's head is improperly proportioned which ends up making her look weird. Even the dev team for the game by Kamiya's own admission favored Jeanne (Whose head more closely matches her body.) over Bayonetta.
You seem to harbor resentment to old Ben, did he hurt you?ostro-whiskey said:And had Yahtzee simply claimed that the armor is ridiculous from a technical point of view I wouldnt have said anything, but as usual he cant stop himself from trying to look like an over qualified smartass.Parallel Streaks said:Don't use the word imbecile dear, it makes you sound like a cartoon scientist.ostro-whiskey said:It obviously cant be something absolutely spurious that makes no sense in any reality, but you are just trying to be a smart ass by saying thats what Im claiming. What Im claiming is you cant claim to know how armor or weaponry functions in a fantasy world with magic and demons and bs.ahpuch said:Good Article. For me the look of War was so over the top silly that I wrote the game off as childish crap. Having read the review by John Funk I would consider getting it now if it came out for the PC but that is despite the stupid look of war and not because of it.
Ummm, no. Fantasy does not give one a pass on practicality or rationality. That is just lazy.ostro-whiskey said:Lol, I found this pretty amusing. It sounds like an attempt made by Yahtzee to try an justify his comments on design, but the fact that he tries to comment on the PRACTICALITY of a FANTASY character just makes him look stupid.
Fantasy requires a suspension of disbelief, does anyone ask why in Tolkiens Lord of the Rings world that in 3000 years people are still running around with medieval weaponry. The same goes with Warhammer 40k, and I suppose Darksiders.
As such your an imbecile for trying to base your dislike of it on practicality.
While suspension of disbelief can be used to explain away the supposed practicality of the armour, it can't wave away the fact that the armour isn't practical from a design stand-point. It's convoluted, hard to animate and render, indistinguishable from the common enemies when in a huddle, and is not overall aesthetically pleasing. At least, to me anyway.
OT: I agree.
Ill use whatever word I want consarnit.
Ohh, you must be referring to the logic of magic, and midichlorians. Lets not forget the logic of monsters and the supernatural. Nice one douchebag.shadow skill said:Uhh there is logic in every single fantasy story that there is. Only a fool tries to argue that our logic does not apply when our logic is applied to these worlds all the time.ostro-whiskey said:How can you claim to know the logic behind a fantasy concept. The fact that it is fantasy is indicative that our logic does not comply. We can safely assume that the guy from Darksiders is closer to a robot than a human, therefore you point is, once again, idiotic. You have yet to clarify what you meant by the "symbolic contents" of the armor, ofcoure its quite likely you were just talking out of your ass.Shamanic Rhythm said:I'm guessing since you're not down with the whole symbolism thing, you're also not too good with irony.ostro-whiskey said:Oh contraire, In Warhammer many parties have resorted to melee combat for whatever reason, so that is why it makes sense. I dont see any "symbolic contents" it seems to like like you're just trying to be conceited. Again you try to say that something in which you have claims is "incoherent and varied", you clearly do not realize the stupididty in this, as I have already pointed out that you have no standing to be able to make such a claim. Perhaps you need to choose your words more carefully.
I never said Fantasy is a liscence to do whatever you want, you are putting words in my mouth, I said the concept behind trying to find fault in the design and practicality of items in a Fantasy world is absolutely stupid.
It is not at all stupid to criticise the practicality of fantasy. You only achieve willing suspension of disbelief if you have coherent logic behind the fantastical concepts you introduce into the world. In literature, a plot resolution achieved through an external device is known as "deus ex machina", and it tends to alienate readers because if you establish boundaries with logical limits, you're expected to stay within them for a resolution. The same principle applies to the practicality of fantasy designs. If we see characters fighting with swords, we expect primitive combat governed by the laws of physics. If you break something like this and create a justification for it that doesn't fit coherently into the overall tenor of your fantasy world, it makes it harder for audiences to willingly suspend disbelief.
logic doesn't have to be realistic. Logic is just a set of rules that apply to a setting.ostro-whiskey said:Ohh, you must be referring to the logic of magic, and midichlorians. Lets not forget the logic of monsters and the supernatural. Nice one douchebag.shadow skill said:Uhh there is logic in every single fantasy story that there is. Only a fool tries to argue that our logic does not apply when our logic is applied to these worlds all the time.ostro-whiskey said:How can you claim to know the logic behind a fantasy concept. The fact that it is fantasy is indicative that our logic does not comply. We can safely assume that the guy from Darksiders is closer to a robot than a human, therefore you point is, once again, idiotic. You have yet to clarify what you meant by the "symbolic contents" of the armor, ofcoure its quite likely you were just talking out of your ass.Shamanic Rhythm said:I'm guessing since you're not down with the whole symbolism thing, you're also not too good with irony.ostro-whiskey said:Oh contraire, In Warhammer many parties have resorted to melee combat for whatever reason, so that is why it makes sense. I dont see any "symbolic contents" it seems to like like you're just trying to be conceited. Again you try to say that something in which you have claims is "incoherent and varied", you clearly do not realize the stupididty in this, as I have already pointed out that you have no standing to be able to make such a claim. Perhaps you need to choose your words more carefully.
I never said Fantasy is a liscence to do whatever you want, you are putting words in my mouth, I said the concept behind trying to find fault in the design and practicality of items in a Fantasy world is absolutely stupid.
It is not at all stupid to criticise the practicality of fantasy. You only achieve willing suspension of disbelief if you have coherent logic behind the fantastical concepts you introduce into the world. In literature, a plot resolution achieved through an external device is known as "deus ex machina", and it tends to alienate readers because if you establish boundaries with logical limits, you're expected to stay within them for a resolution. The same principle applies to the practicality of fantasy designs. If we see characters fighting with swords, we expect primitive combat governed by the laws of physics. If you break something like this and create a justification for it that doesn't fit coherently into the overall tenor of your fantasy world, it makes it harder for audiences to willingly suspend disbelief.