Point out consistency error in video game

Lets see your face, I want to see what a alpha top dog looks like

Just ignore them they're plebs.

The same people that think games or media in general is only entertaining if it's traditionally "fun".

>lego cartoons

What did he mean by this

t. Pete Hines

bro you're dumb for putting your face on the Internet

Pic related: it's me

>point out game has glaring issues with balancing/extreme specific positioning/etc
>git gud

>OP gets BTFO
>comes to Cred Forums to try to save face

This one gets me every fucking time. Fucking hell I'll never buy a single Beth game again unless obisidan gets revenue from it.

cool, I like you

here's me

Oh, is this a 343 industries thread?

I don't mind people questioning consistency, as long as their consistent in their consistency.

>fallout 3
>WHAT DO THEY EAT, THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING BECAUSE IMPORTANT YOUTUBE GUY SAID
>Question borderlands, other fallouts, metro, dying light, bioshock, fuck any other game where that shit isn't adequetely explained
>lol who cares

Don't even like Fallout 3, but everyone just focuses down that one specific flaw like it's the most important shit ever.

Wtf bro did u seriously said that? Wow, just wow

Pete Hines pls go

your work is bad and you should feel bad

Reminds me of the Dangan Ronpa fanbase

Wow! You literally look like me.

Danganronpa runs on consistency errors at this point

Inform me, user, for I have not played Halo 4/5

name a consistency error then tough guy

>borderlands
Yeah, maybe they just roast skags all day. No idea.
>other fallouts
... Have farms.
>Metro
Aren't there food stalls and pre-war stuff lying around? Everyone's in squalor for food anyway
>dying light
Fresh zombie apocalypse, innit? Consistent food is the least of their worries.
>bioshock
There's food everywhere though, like, all over rapture, and plenty of kitchens and food stuffs. The botanical garden itself could've been used to grow food. And who knows, maybe splicers don't even need to eat. They also have a consistent supply of fish.

Well, that shot from the advertisement alone has an error. That model of pistol was not in service during the timeframe the ad takes place.
Other stuff include retconning the class of ship the Forward Unto Dawn was TWICE, Halo rings having detachable segments that can disable a firing sequence that Spark did not use in 3 for some reason, and many MJOLNIR variants that weren't made until Mark VI somehow existing for Mark IV armor.

that's fucking crazy

on another note, was the absence of the assault rifle EVER explained, in lore, for halo 2? ditto for smg in halo 4.

>watching movie/playing game with a faggot
>keeps pointing out unrealistic or unbelievable things
>he can't/won't understand how I dont care because it's fiction

autist and normies cant suspend disbelief

>was the absence of the assault rifle EVER explained, in lore, for halo 2?
Yes. Contact Harvest.
>ditto for smg in halo 4.
No.

I like to think those people have never been immersed in anything.

>shitty writers have to excuse their retardation with "it's just a game"
Don't even bother with a serious story, then.

>Yes. Contact Harvest.

Go on...

>phone resolution
>twitter
>smug selfie

you look alright but get the fuck out of here

>Ifunny

but that's not methat's digital meI just grabbed the pic off the internet

>Discussing Bioshock Infinite with a friend
>Mention that the game annoys me because the term "quantum physics" is just a substitute for magic, and that it's grounded on a loose understanding of the science itself
>Friend tells me that it's just a story so it can make up whatever rules it wants.

People like Pete belong on a cross

Normies actually believe this and the professionals know

insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter/

>game calculates gamestate per frame rendered

>mfw someone doesn't understand the concept of suspension of disbelief near me

Wait i'm confused, isn't that the cause why there were no battle rifles in h1?

The problem is the game inconsistency breaks the suspension cause you're gonna concern yourself with trivial in-game shit and could have been answered with an in-game trivial presentation.

I knew an autist that would pull this shit all the time, he honestly ruined boob plate for me by saying "How do you know know this kind or armour doesn't protect you against weapons in this world? :^)" every time someone brought it up.

>on Cred Forums
>complains about anime reaction images

>point out a mechanic problem due to the limitations of the medium in that particular age that can get in the way of someone who is playing it for the first time
>lol git gud

>its not even real bro

>"What do you mean you can't 'Pause' and Online game user?! Get out here right now!"

>he hates invisible walls in open world action rpgs
>thinks the game world should take place on a giant plateau
>so there'd be a logical reason that prevents him from leaving that area
>he completely ignore the impact that'd have on the game word's economy

>Be retarded
>Don't know the difference between consistency and realism
Seek help user, assisted suicide is your only hope.

>end up getting chewed out for "being to absorbed in those video games"
>goes back into original question
>It would something she could have easily gone down to tell me

The inability to differenciate between belivability and realism is something that can drive me up the wall. Why is such a simple concept so god-damn difficult to understand? Why is this shit not taught in highschool or something?

The main difference between say, Fallout 3 and Borderlands is that Borderlands does not actually try to create a consistent and belivable universe to begin with.
And the main difference between Fallout 3 and other Fallouts is that THEY ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THE FUCKING ANSWER.

>consistency
>realism

I think you are missing my point and I don't think you are using those words right.

>devs take note and explain the error in the sequel and it's a major plot point

>Get the point wrong completely
>Misuse words and phrases and get called out on it
>N-no y-you!
Really user? Get the fuck out of here you clown.

Thread is about errors of consistency and people then bringing up realism, which is then exactly what you fucking do you inbred mongoloid. Jesus fuck how do you even function.

>Friend tells me that it's just a story so it can make up whatever rules it wants.
Your friend does not understand how stories work then.
Most people don't, actually. And that makes me sad.

>Halo rings having detachable segments that can disable a firing sequence that Spark did not use in 3 for some reason
Well maybe not all Halos have all the same features

Back to /r/eddit faglord, this is anime central

This cannot be an argument unless the writing explains this as a fact.

>point out inconsistency
>music doesn't stop

>figure out the whole thing from the midpoint
>music stops every time you present evidence

It's the only reason I didn't hate Recipe for Turnabout. So ez.

I don't give a fuck what this thread is about. My point is that you can't just want a game to take place on an island or plateau because invisible walls trigger your autism yet be perfectly fine with shop keepers charging around the same price for foreign daggers and herbs as the local stuff. I mean come on that shit has got to be a bitch to import.

Suspension of disbelief only works when said inconsistency or error violates a constant of what defines said game or if the laws of physics are supposed to apply in said world.

If it hasn't established something cannot happen in a previous game for a specific set of reasons and that very thing happens in a future, it's a consistency error. Like how some games Mario can't breathe underwater or take fall damage and some games neither of those are a problem.

If it's just people bitching about how that sort of thing will NEVER happen in the first installment for unquantifiable reasons other than a feeling in one's heart or lack of research pertaining to the subject/thing being referenced, then it's not an inconsistency. It's nitpicking.

>Criticize flaws with a game's combat mechanics and provide examples of other games that have similar or the same mechanics but don't have these flaws
>WOW YOU'RE A FUCKING CASUAL.
>haha I feel bad for 60fps fags, just enjoy the game
Fromsoft babies

>Go on about this retarded bullshit that no one was talking or caring about
Yea we established you were retarded user, why the fuck are you still here regurgitating irrelevant bullshit about realism that has nothing to fucking do with anything?

Why does it bother you so much user-kun?

>tell the person that the game is pretty fun to play
>B-BUT THE STORY MAKES NO SENSE WTF I NEED MUH NARRATIVE AND MUH LORE I FEEL SO DISCONNECTED YOU HAVE SHIT TASTE
>tell them that the game is still fun mechanically and that the short comings of the story are either subjective or completely irrelevant
>hehe jokes on you kid im going to shitpost this onto /vee/ and try to validate my opionion, cya later sucker ;))

one of the reasons witcher 3 was so popular, people felt immersed all the way trough without terrible inconsistancies taking you out of the experience all the time

Stop projecting faggot, ridiculing you and calling you out on being a retarded faggot doesn't require me to be 'bothered' as much as you'd like to think it does.

I'm here because I'm amused, and calling you out on being a retarded faggot is greatly entertaining.

Do people still care about the ghoul in the fridge thing?

I can't feel immersed in a game that doesn't let me play my own character.

I'm having fun too user-kun.

I'm having some serious problems understanding this post...
First:
>Suspension of disbelief only works when said inconsistency or error violates a constant of what defines said game or if the laws of physics are supposed to apply in said world.
You are saying a lot of things fairly wrong.
First of all: Suspension of disbelief is not the situation where you suddenly realize the error: it's what happens when you are willing to overlook certain small inconsistencies in order to maintain interest and ability to relate to the narrative.
Second of all, both consistency errors and suspension of disbelief don't have anything to do with laws of physics: it's about the narrative not being self-contradictory and being relatively easy to follow it's internal (narrative) logic.

Third, I seriously can't even decipher what the last sentence is saying.

>Get told a game is great
>Ask why
>"The story is amazing!"
>Try the game
>Story is absolute garbage, filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, protagonist is a complete Mary Sue that is known and appreciated by everyone with power you ever meet despite being little more than a mercenary, everyone would rather rely on him than their own people despite him being notoriously neutral
>"What the fuck dude, that story was garbage, how the fuck do you recommend this shit?"
>"Dude lmao why so srsly the story is good though"

Fuck Witcher 3, what a fucking piece of shit, and the story was the least of the issues that pile of trash had.

reading books must feel awful for you

I don't read novels. Novels are the junk food of literature.

>that the short comings of the story are either subjective or completely irrelevant
First of all, you can't be fucking surprised when people call you an idiot for making this claim. BUT IT'S SUBJECTIVE is bullshit cop-out of a defense, you can go fuck yourself right off with that.
Second of all:
"irrelevant"? Irrelevant to who and when? People might want and value different things from their services.
If you'd take somebody into a restaurant that you like because it's cheap and fast and nutritious and perhaps even healthy and you don't care it's not very good in taste, and your friend told you: I don't like that restaurant, the food wasn't very tasty, you can't go and tell them
"well that is subjective or irrelevant because it's nutritious and cheap". That is just fucking stupid.
They wanted a good story, they did not get it. That is a relevant and valid complaint, provided that they can actually explain what was the issue with the story.

>He think 'literature' is arbitrarily better
Always some special snowflake faggot who thinks 'my arbitrarily categorized bullshit is somehow better than this other arbitrarily categorized bullshit because reasons, because thinking in broad categories rather than actual specifics proves I'm so smrt ;^)'

>Novels are the junk food of literature.
I assume that you are just baiting, but I've actually seen people who think that shit. It's one of the saddest sights I've ever seen. And not all of them even had the excuse of being autists.

It's not just "my" opinion. Most intelligent people in the 19th century knew it too.

Depends on the game. If it's not taking itself seriously anyway, I might overlook some inconsistencies.

>Figure it out
>Have to go through 5 minutes of Nick not understanding shit.

>P-people agree with me
If that argument is your only recourse you might as well have just said; "I have nothing reasonable left to say"

To pretend all literature is somehow legitimate when the label isn't enforced by a strict guideline of quality is retarded. To pretend all novels are pulp is equally retarded unless all novels are vetted for quality, which they clearly are not. To dismiss the sociological value of novels and their writing is senseless and befitting of a simpleton, not an intellectual.

Argue with your own words faggot, don't just regurgitate opinions and platitudes you think others share with you, that's asinine and ridiculous.

Ahahahahaha WHAT?! You mean in the era of Balzac, Dostojevski, Eliot, Proust, Zola?
You know, the era where novel established itself as the most powerful medium and tool of social understanding and commentary?

Also in late enlightenment, "most intelligent people" were really, REALLY fucking wrong about the world.

They have farms in Metro 2033. They harvest hogs and chicken for protein and there are entire stations that produce mutated shrooms for carbs. This is a plot point when the Red Line gasses one of these farms.

nobody is crying about invisible walls here user only you

...

Most of those works truly became popular only in the 20th century with the feminization of society.

>feminiziation meme
Cred Forums plz go

>Let me try to cover my retarded ass by making a completely unsubstantiated statement that I can in no way prove.
user please, for your own sake, stop posting. You've made it abundantly clear that you're talking out of your ass and have no idea what you're talking about at that, and doubling down on your own bullshit is really not helping anyone.

Please tell me you are trolling. PLEASE tell me you are trolling.
Damn, I mean I take it back: I've seen people saying dumb shit about how novel is inferior literature, most of them being autists who don't really understand how fiction works, but this is really out-of-the-left-field level of stupid.

If you like novels, you might as well just be watching tv. It's the same thing, it's just made-up bullshit where you don't learn anything or do anything except to consume passive entertainment. The only good books are those who allow you to increase your knowledge substantially.

So you only read manuals?

No. I read all types of non-fiction books.

don't mind me just posting some "junk food literature". Here's one from that smut peddler Steinbeck. Nothing to learn about the great depression here folks, just made up bullshit. It's not like they make kids read this shit in schools or anything.

>So you only read manuals?
I'd guess encyclopedia's, too. Would fit in with the whole "19th century people had it figured out" logic.

Because, you know, the only useful knowledge takes form of stuff you can encyclopedically recite and stories talk about people and people scare and confuse him.

>mfw i grabbed a movie poster
never trust a thumbnail

You could absorb knowledge about the great depression a lot more efficiently by reading an actual, serious History book on it. Modern schools are garbage and it's widely accepted that kids nowadays are a lot dumber than those of the past as a result. Functional illiteracy is actually climbing. Just look at almost any letter written in the 19th century by a kid and compare it to, say, modern adult journalists. The difference in quality is striking.

You do realize that the description you gave for novels also applies to literature, right? Most literature is still fiction you imbecile.

Again, you're the one putting arbitrary categories where the subject is and should only ever be 'writing' or even just 'media' at that, and trying to categorize those into specific groups and then pretending one group is arbitrarily and absolutely better or worse than the other is just ridiculous.

And what the fuck is this even? "Those who allow you to increase your knowledge substantially"? How do you define 'increase your knowledge'? How do you value that? How do you determine what is and isn't 'substantial'? Reading fiction gives me knowledge of writing, of what people find entertaining media, of how the writer uses metaphor and fantasy to communicate real principles and concepts.

All you're essentially suggesting so far is that you're incapable of evaluating complex constructs beyond bite-size ready-made 'knowledge' which implies a very significant lack of intellectual capacity, since you seem to be hindered in the ability to think for yourself and find value where it isn't extremely readily apparent.

A completely dense simpleton speaking of knowledge and intelligence, the irony is palpable.

I knew this would be posted before entering the thread. God how i dislike that fucking cunt.

They understand how story work user
They are entertainment only autists think critically about.

I'm about to start that trial.
Like right now.
Help me understand. What should I be on the lookout for?

Yeah I always thought these hacks couldn't not know how to right words and shit. Look at this glorified ragsheet. Nothing too see here, just shitty tabloid tier righting.

>You could absorb knowledge about the great depression a lot more efficiently by reading an actual, serious History book on it

All I get from this statement is that you don't enjoy thinking for yourself a whole lot, and instead prefer devouring information someone else has already prepared for you. Good on you user, I hope your autism is treating you well too.

If this upset you, no joke unironically kys

don't throw off his daily routine user he goes into a rage if everthing doesn't happen exactly the same way every day

youtube.com/watch?v=gYyk5OPiXdE

Look man, I know autism is a meme and all, but this time I can't ignore it, that shit is the literal exact opposite of autism, autism is the tendency to overthink and over-complicate due to inability to efficiently and effectively categorize information.

This dumb faggot is over-categorizing and under-thinking, which couldn't be further from autism.

Dude isn't an autist, he's a fucking imbecile.

>Most literature is still fiction you imbecile.
Because it's easier to write. Any bored housewife can just write a novel. Writing a real book takes actual knowledge and effort.

>And what the fuck is this even? "Those who allow you to increase your knowledge substantially"? How do you define 'increase your knowledge'? How do you value that? How do you determine what is and isn't 'substantial'?
It's almost impossible to truly quantify, but it's common sense that a book made for research is going to be more dense in useful information (the color of your protagonist's hair isn't useful information) than a fiction book.
I never said that fiction authors necessarily didn't know how to write. Some are very good at it. I'm just saying that the level among people in general really decreased during the 20th century.
You can't just learn from every fields by "thinking for yourself". Like if I want to learn about ancient Egyptians, it would be incredibly inefficient to go explore their ruins and try to figure out their writing by myself. It's a lot more efficient to just read books from people who have already done it.

>I'm having fun too user-kun.
Get me the paddle, its time to beat a weaboo

>game is praised for its realism
>"All we have left now is pray to God." in the dialogue
>realism

>You could absorb knowledge about the great depression a lot more efficiently by reading an actual, serious History book on it.
No, you could not. Because human perception and experience is more complex than a set of data. Actually understanding the world requires understand of people: what they feel, dream, what matters to them and why, how the percieve, how the communicate, associate.

Modern schools are garbage, mostly because there is a decreased emphasis on social studies outside of contemporary politically relevant ones and lack of "classical education". It may surprise you, but back when education was better, the MAJORITY of the curriculum was CLASSIC literature. Kids read and fucking memorized stuff like Ilias, Balzac, great poets. It was important for several reasons. One was that it was teaching them discipline: the thing that is actually missing the MOST from modern education. The other was that it taught them reverence of wisdom and experience, of the sum of all the useful things that people have learned, observed and noted down. Majority of those things has been, is, and always WILL be social and psychological knowledge, because an absolutely disproportionate part of our survival and daily problems is actually directly linked to our social capacities.
The fact that the increased rigidity also improved the performance on functional knowledge was largely a side-effect of that.

>They are entertainment only autists think critically about.
There goes the word you don't really understand again.

what about historical fiction?

this thread is pretty inconsistent with OP's original point
how'd that happen?

Cred Forums is not one person

turned into a fishing pond

yes I am

>Any bored housewife can write a novel
And any shit book can get credited as literature. Neither case creates an exclusive semblance of quality for either category.

>It's common sense that a book made for reseach is going to be more dense in """"useful"""" information
Presuming the information is accurate. Just looking at classic encyclopedia's you'll find that it very often is not. A book made for research can contain flaws, errors, misinformation, misrepresentation, subjective analysis, misleading conjecture, and dozens of other examples of complete wastes of time, just as much so as the color of your protagonists hair.

Just do yourself a favor and stop arbitrarily defining things as literature or novels and pretending there is an absolute sense of value to it, some literature is absolute bullshit and some novels are brilliant representations of a historic mindset, philosophy, insight into their morals and values, which in turn gives insight into psychiatry and sociology, the evolution of societal norms, thoughts, methods and motives, all things that would be completely lost in a more structured, scientific text, or rigidly attaching value to a small subset of writers that fail to be representative.

Your failure to determine meaning and value where there isn't any only at a level that is utterly lacking in intellectual depth just says more about you than the medium you're trying to discuss, as I've said before, you're completely unqualified to have this discussion and are making a fool of yourself, in your own interest just stop posting.

>Any bored housewife can just write a novel.
And only a genius can write a novel that even several thousand years ago fascinates and resonates with people.
When two people do one thing, it's not always the same thing.

>but it's common sense that a book made for research is going to be more dense in useful information
Define useful. Because I can assure you that reading Crime and Punishment carefully will equip you with better understanding of human behavior than reading three or four psychology textbooks. There is a reason why that book is part of mandatory reading on just about every psych school in the world.

>It's a lot more efficient to just read books from people who have already done it.
You know what is also useful? Read their fiction, to understand what they thought, what they feared, how the percieved the world etc...

Seriously, what you don't understand is that good fiction teaches us about ourselves, about people. Autists have problem comprehending why that is important because they have severally damaged social intelligence and basically don't understand notions such as human universality in face of it's complexity, and lack the mental flexibility to transpose complex abstract structures of meaning from one context to another - especially between one person and another.

Healthy person understands that good fiction speaks about patterns of human behavior and perception that have a degree of universality, and that are too complex, usually emergent, to be simply described in classic descriptive manner.

That is why people read fiction. To get access to the incredibly complex model of human psychology and experience. To expand and experience things their normal would not allow them, or that might come in handy in the future.

>No, you could not. Because human perception and experience is more complex than a set of data.
Your "human set of perception and experience", whatever that is, is not more important than data. Especially not perception and experience from fictional characters. Now, obviously, those will have been based on real people, but it still doesn't even come close to being as important as actually understanding all the events that happened on a macro-scale. And besides, for that purpose, you should be reading memoirs, not novels.
Mixes pointless "information" with useful information.
>Presuming the information is accurate. Just looking at classic encyclopedia's you'll find that it very often is not. A book made for research can contain flaws, errors, misinformation, misrepresentation, subjective analysis, misleading conjecture, and dozens of other examples of complete wastes of time, just as much so as the color of your protagonists hair.
Sure, but then it's just uncertain whether the information will be good or not. In the case of a novel, it's certain that it won't since it's made-up bullshit.

>as I've said before, you're completely unqualified to have this discussion and are making a fool of yourself, in your own interest just stop posting.
I don't care what you think of me. I'm telling the truth. Choosing novels over essays or memoirs is like picking abstract art over photorealistic art.

Okay, fuck you. You keep posting this fucking picture over and over again as if on some level you actually think that's you. Y0u must think you're pretty epic, huh? Aren't you just the funniest guy around? Grow the fuck up. stop posting that picture and pretending to be me.

Again with the ad hominem. I'm not autistic, I've never been diagnosed with ANY kind of mental issues, and my social intelligence is great.

What game doesn't have plenty of inconsistencies and has fantasy/magical themes?

He's right, though.

Your argument that raw data has more value that data about how data is interpreted, assessed, interacted with and processed is another completely senseless statement. Pure data would argue for communism, ignoring humanities inability to make it work, and we all know how that turns out. Ignoring the human factor in all data is a folly of simpletons.

>Every novel is made up bullshit
So you have no idea what novels are, how about you do as I told you and stop posting already, spend the next few hours actually learning what defines a work as a novel and how that plays into your argument, because this is getting ridiculous. Not only did you attach an absolute value to a poorly defined and qualified category, but you then decide to define the category with your own made-up attached value.

>Implying essays or memoirs don't often contain falsification exaggeration, metaphor that you couldn't interpret at all if not for understanding culture and circumstance which is communicated mainly and most reliably in works such as novels, plays, and cultural stories.

Seriously dude, stop, your oversimplifying something much more complex than you seem to have the ability to comprehend, you're bring an extremely complex subject down to absolutely retarded levels of simplicity and it just doesn't fucking work.

>Your "human set of perception and experience", whatever that is, is not more important than data.
Actually, it's far more important than data. It allowed to survive thousand years before a notion of data even emerged. In fact, even the notion of "data" is just a sub-category of that. Their emergence, their relevance are dictated precisely by the human experience and that alone.

>but it still doesn't even come close to being as important as actually understanding all the events that happened on a macro-scale.
AHAHAHAHAHA Understanding the actual people that you will spend 90% of your waking life interacting with, and understanding the role and context of basic daily objects, dreams, the entire reality that surrounds you on daily basis is less important than the events on macro scale?
First of all: you are laughably deluded if you believe that non-fiction you read actually gives you an objective view on what happens on the macro scale.
Second of all: most of what happens on the macro scale begins in the mind of those people whose perception you have so readily dismissed.
Third of all: you are an insignificant idiot that will never actually impact anything and those events on macro scale will never actually impact you in the way you seem to think they will. Fun fact: you don't live on macro-scale.

>And besides, for that purpose, you should be reading memoirs, not novels.
Again, because the models fiction creates cannot to transposed from and into real world and real life. Somehow. And a direct account of objective events is the only way to communicate complex notions. And changing context of those complex notions and exercising your flexibility understending their relation to context is a futile exercise.

Because a grief of a woman who lost his husband is not a notion that can pop up in different contexts. THIS man died on THIS DAY. That is all you'll ever need to understand about death of a loved one, apparently.

>I'm not autistic, I've never been diagnosed with ANY kind of mental issues, and my social intelligence is great.
Uhhh, you just admited that you can't comprehend the value of fiction. No, your social intelligence is literally non-existent.

Also, maybe try actually addressing the points I've made before getting offended about the insult. And perhaps read more carefully. I've stated that autists are typical for struggling with understanding exactly the thing you are struggling to understand. I did not say you are an autist, actually. You might be an entirely different type of completely deranged person.

It's not a meme though, just look at your manboobs

>>Implying essays or memoirs don't often contain falsification exaggeration, metaphor that you couldn't interpret at all if not for understanding culture and circumstance which is communicated mainly and most reliably in works such as novels, plays, and cultural stories.
I don't even know what to say to this. It's crazy that some people actually believe this. Yeah, your fiction stories are more informative and realistic than accounts from people who were actually there or writings from people who actually researched it.
>First of all: you are laughably deluded if you believe that non-fiction you read actually gives you an objective view on what happens on the macro scale.
Ok, I'll take the simplest example I can get.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
>The Norman conquest of England was the 11th-century invasion and occupation of England by an army of Norman, Breton, and French soldiers led by Duke William II of Normandy, later styled as William the Conqueror.
So according to you, this part isn't an objective view on what happened? But a novel written 800 years later inspired by the event would be?

>Third of all: you are an insignificant idiot that will never actually impact anything and those events on macro scale will never actually impact you in the way you seem to think they will. Fun fact: you don't live on macro-scale.
So what? Does everything have to be about you or me? I learn because it interests me, not because it directly impacts me. Just how self-centered can you be?
>You might be an entirely different type of completely deranged person.
Ok, cool. What am I then? I'm sure you can figure it out from reading Harry Potter and its precious psychiatric information.

>point out a plot hole in a movie
>LOL dude, just like turn off your brain and enjoy
its the same cancer of retards but in vidya

Not him but buddy please, stop oversimplifying.

I'm literally autistic, my social intelligence is ACTUALLY non-existent, and I can tell you exactly the value of fiction because even on a non-emotional non-si level fiction has a great deal of value.

How to interpret data is FAR more important than raw data, and understanding people is necessary for understanding the data they produce, or at least translate it to an applicable context. Fiction helps you understand people far more than some dry text about how people's brains work, as any such data is generally oversimplified to fit an absurdly complex constuct (the human sociological system of interactions) into digestible chunks that lose all applicable value.

As I said before, the dude isn't autistic, the dude is a moron that vastly overestimates his own ability.

>I don't even know what to say to this, so I'll make a strawman out of it and say something to that instead!
user what the actual fuck is wrong with you.

Understanding fiction helps you understand the process of creating it, of why it's created and what it does, this helps in the process of assessing and interpreting data, and data without the ability to interpret it is absolutely worthless.

How the fuck would you interpret the data created by someone if you're incapable of understanding the context in which that person created the data?

there is a difference between suspension of disbelief and in-world consistency.

why?

The suspension collapsed under all the bullshit.

That pic's been going around for a while user. Probably isn't him

>I don't even know what to say to this. It's crazy that some people actually believe this.
Actually, it's absolutely crazy that YOU don't understand why this is true. Let's illustrate this on an example I provided earlier: the case of woman losing her lover.
The data, conveyed in a memoir: person Miss Kittinsburg lost her husband on on May 1st 1954: and that is FACT. That really happened, you can read that in her memoir. And, as she says, it hurt a lot.
That is according to you, what always matters more. Nothing can be more valuable.
A book "A Year of Magical Thinking" by Didion, speaks a fictional account of a fictional women who lost her husband, and paints an extremely vivid and detailed picture of what is and how it devastates her personality.

According to you, the data (miss Kittensburg really lost her husband) is what matters.
Not WHAT IT IS TO LOSE A PERSON LIKE. Not the actual vividity of the story, no the literally talent with which it is described, not the importance of grief and pain itself.
Those things don't matter. Pain and grief don't count if it did not happen to a real person, or count for less: even if the description is much more apt and vivid and relatable. It's not like it COULD happen to say, someone around you: all that matters is that it happend to this woman this one time:
THAT is your idea of usefulness of data, that is what you are saying when you say data are always more important than human perception and experience, and the way the message is communicated: the literary talent and passion.

Because according to, among others, nobody who had not lost their husband can ever understand what it is like, and everybody who had will ALWAYS be better at communicating it to others.

Yeah, fantastic logic.
That there is more where that came from, so cont. soon.

If only we could have writers that cared about consistency with their work instead of "its just a game bro" when they get criticized

What weapon did Mikan use to kill Hiyoko?

Don't get me started on the lore/story between games

...

>So according to you, this part isn't an objective view on what happened?
No. It's a very simplified model of what probably happened. The historical accounts are not as reliable, and the actual sum of factors playing role in it is not complete: and the image the wiki article paints in your head is painfully incomplete and simplified.
So no, that is not an objective view of what happened: that is a useful approximation of what most likely happened.

>But a novel written 800 years later inspired by the event would be?
A novel written 800 years later might give you far more complex approximation into what could have been going on in the head of Duke William the night before the invasion, which ultimately is something that you might find far more useful in your life when you'll be dealing with stress before a major event in your life.

>Does everything have to be about you or me?
Yes, you are the one thing that you'll really have to live with your entire fucking life: something that you will never escape. You SHOULD start actually appreciating that, because if you won't, you'll end up really unhappy.

>I learn because it interests me, not because it directly impacts me. Just how self-centered can you be?
You just used the derivations of the pronoun "me" twice and then say that I'm self-centered.
That is actually fucking hillarious.

YOU are self-centered. Enough actually, to claim "This does not interest me, so it's WORTHLESS". Literally you just admited that the only reason why you dismiss fiction is because YOU have different interests. That would not actually be wrong if you weren't deluded enough to conflate your personal interests with actual jugements about importance of things like forms of fiction, and if you did not delude yourself into thinking that your perspective is near-absolute.

If you'd actually learned about other people, it would allow you to understand yourself better, and not make fucking idiotic calls like that.

In the first 10 minutes of metro 2033 you see pigs in pig pens

In the first 10 minutes of Fallout 1 you encounter a FARMING town, literally half of the town are crop fields, and you can even teach them crop rotation (wich influences the ending)

You haven't even played those games, have you?

Literally Danganronpa, I hate when that shit happens so much

>Not him but buddy please, stop oversimplifying.
Actually, you are entirely right. While I stand by my notion that many autists and people with poor social intelligence DO have problem understanding that sort of things, I am wrong on assuming that being autistic actually means that you automatically can't understand that sort of things. As you had proven to me.

So yeah, I'm sorry, that was a poor judgement call on my side.

ITT: When the coolest boss in the game ends up being the easiest boss in the game

>halo rings have detachable segments
>taking out a piece of a giant rotating space ring
>space ring not flying apart into a million pieces
thats fucking retarded
and fuck you i dont care how advanced the forerunners were, that is some physics fucking bullshit

This would be so easy to fix. Just change "shipped more psycho and jet" to "shipped more drugs".

Instead he went "lol its just a game don't worry about realism"

I hate when this happens. I hate even more when there's a few related clues that all should count and it's not obvious which one they want.

>Geralt
>A little more of a mercenary
I mean sure, he's a beefed up mercenary who survived literally hundreds of battles against all kinds of monsters, etc. But you don't really come by a Witcher regularly.

It's also a mystery how he doesn't break anyone's arms immediately when they try to block some of his swings, but that can be written of as gameplay balance.

I don't the story of the writting in general too bad either. Not amazing, can't even remember some plot points, but it's not total shit.
Sidequests are pretty good.

I like how this goes:
>this is bullshit
>nuh-uh!
>it is, and here's more bullshit
>i never wanted to talk to you anyways

If he doesn't talk about realism, why would he bother responding in the first place?

...

I just finished Danganronpa the other day and goddamn am I triggered right now. Those fucking bullet time battles where you have to absorb statements. Oh, I'm so sorry I tried to connect "impossible" to "murder weapon" instead of connecting "murder weapon" to "impossible", how silly of me! Fuck you, Byakuya.

>Halo rings having detachable segments that can disable a firing sequence that Spark did not use in 3 for some reason

Lorefag here, this has actually been canon for a while before escalations. As far as the armor varient stuff, I don't think that's worth whining over, because if you wanna be technicall, all MJOLNR varients are the same way, since before Halo 3 there was never any mention of varients at all IIRC

I agree the FuD's retcon and then the retconning of that retcon was hilariously bad though. I also really hate how badly they protrayed rampancy in halo 4.

I don't get why 343 struggles so hard with story in the games when as far as the novels go they have done just as good a s job as bungie did

The presence or absence of a particular gun or armor set in a particular halo game has never been canonical. Canonically, there were assault rifles used during the events of Halo 2, even if there aren't any in game

Likewise, I don't think bitching about the presence of the M6H (at least I think it's the H, might be the G2?) is worthwhile. Bungie did that stuff too.

Halo 5's MP and forge is really good and it's worth checking out for that, but other then that I wouldn't bother with either 4 or 5

>There's much shit going on, it actually helps you get out of the situation
This should be an actual mechanic.

I don't get it. Because dragons exist you can have carts with square wheels? Because there's an elf some npc can tell me this isn't his first time at the rodeo?
People will accept the fantastic without breaking immersion but just because you have fantasy doesn't mean you don't have to get the normal shit right.

dude what in the fuck happened to this thread
like, isnt there already a literature board? go fuck off there you fags

>complain western game is nothing but ugly bald muscle men
>lol its just gaem are you a faget
>he complains eastern game has sexually attractive characters that show skin, are too colorful and make him uncomfortable

lol its just gaem are you a faget.

>make a game with tons of particle effects when enemies attack
>framerate drops to single digits
>say your MC has time control abilities
This is actually a great plan

I hate it when games lack internal consistency
act like you put some thought in the game ffs

>MGR
>Mr. Sun "I'M FUCKING INVINCIBLE" Downer
>He really fucking isn't

>So what? Does everything have to be about you or me? I learn because it interests me, not because it directly impacts me.

>Just how self-centered can you be?

>LEL FICTION IS JUNK FOOD OF LITERATURE IT IS LITERALLY WORTHLESS BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT I AS AN INTELLECTUAL SCOFF AT YOU SUBHUMANS WASTING YOUR TIME WITH SUCH FILTH

Christ, you are one humongous cunt. Drink bleach.

I'll point inconsistent shit out to people for a laugh but I never take it too seriously.
Unless it's about Batman. I get really autistic about Batman for some reason.

I leave Cred Forums for 2 years and one of the first threads I find is full of fags defending FO3&4.
What the fuck happened to you idiots?
I bet you niggas don't even STALK.

Welcome to 1980's shmups.

Realism is always stupid, if it causes you to lose your sense of disbelief and actually distracts you sure that's a problem.

but like if it works in universe or isn't that big of a deal it's pointless to care.

Realism is like the bottom of the barrel of nit picks.

>Watching Aliens
>all of a sudden Spongebob motherfucking Squarepants appears and takes a shit in an aliens mouth
>Lel dun complain bruh its just fictshun :^)

You must have really shit standards.

What if the story is a war-based one, like Battlefield usually is
And like they often advertise it as
And like they are slowly learning to NOT advertise it as because they're proving to be worse and worse at it

>watching aliens
>alien can continue to function even within the vacuum of space
>Lel dun complain bruh its just fictshun :^)

You see how this actually works?

Even then it's fine if reality breaks a little. Like a guy bounces a bullet off of someones head and it hits another guy in the face. Would be unrealistic but within the bounds of the universe it's fine.

Trust me, if stories were 100% realistic they would be awful.

It's not implausible for an alien species we know little about could survive in space.

Yes but it's highly unlikely and unrealistic.
Kind of like when in star wars 7 the laser was seen across the galaxy, but technically it would take years for it to be seen.

It's unrealistic but it's necessary for the story.
Getting upset over that would be stupid.

That's not even the same thing and you know it, you mong. Reality vs consistency. Aliens being able to breath in space can be considered a perfectly consistent and plausible element within that fictional work. Having Spongebob pop from existence and shit in an aliens mouth isn't. But please, tell me your favorite movie or book and I hope the writer adds one more page saying that the main character was actually a humongous faggot with AIDS who drank bleach and hallucinated the entire thing. I'm sure you would love that. Also, I'm sure you are a huge fan of Star Wars and George Lucas :^)

>unrealistic
Realism isn't the problem, the reason why would be an issue is because it's inconsistent with the rest of the film, while is an acceptable thing to happen in the film.

When it comes to historical games like I said, the usual complaints are inaccuracies like certain sides being in places where they shouldn't be at certain points of a war (e.g. Germans being in west Portugal or something similarly weird) or soldiers from one country having another's uniform (e.g. EA's newest one of an Italian wearing French garb).

Chance-based things like what you suggested are alright if they happen occasionally, but should be avoided. It's life, strange things do happen every now and again, but a string of bullshit luck throughout a story can get irritating.

Physics being broken, incorrect lengths of time or inaccuracies within the storyteller's own material however, is fucking stupid and indicates a lack of fact-checking or thinking being done.
Things that straight up cannot fucking happen and have been set in stone to be so by the damn writer should stay so, or things get fucking retarded and nobody takes the setting seriously.

>Realism isn't the problem

yes it is you mongs. That was the entire point of the original post Someone said something was unrealistic and got upset over it, the Op said it's stupid to get mad when things get unrealistic.
He never said consistancy.

With most species I'd agree, but xenomorphs are literal bioweaponry. They were created with extreme environments in mind and have exoskeletons that would keep them at least in one piece for a period of time

I don't normally like excusing things that make space seem survivable, but it was a damn xenomorph dude

>or unbelievable

The fucking OP topic is about consistency. Mong.

Spongebob walking in and shitting in someones mouth isn't "unbelievable"

I really doubt what OP was watching was on the same level as spongebob shitting in someones mouth.

It was more than likely something minor happening that his friend was complaining about like he was a film critic.

>points out the difference between realism and consistancy
>Op specifically says realism
>NO what he meant was consistancy!

>Spongebob walking in and shitting in someones mouth isn't "unbelievable"
It is in the world of Aliens, it would completely break your suspension of disbelief.

>hurr women wearing high heels isnt realistic
>but dragons, magic and female warriors are perfectly fine
kys

I'm not saying it's not unbelievable. What I'm saying is that it's a lot more than just Unbelievable. Using an extreme example like that to prove a point doesn't work, that's why I said

Sea sponges can't produce shit.

Most of the time I think high heels are stupid, but that's because I normally hate the rest of the design. What gets my goat is stuff that's functional enough that you can tell what the character is like and what they do just by looking at their clothes.

But People that say "oh shes running around in high heels" don't actually care about realism, they're just using realism to back up their insecurities in their arguement.

Kind of like the whole quiet thing.
People blew that up for no reason just because they hate boobs, when in all honesty she would realistically be naked. Her wearing clothes would actively hempen her ability to turn invisible.

Re-read the first post. He is talking about pointing out consistency errors and retards confusing it with "realism."

>autist and normies cant suspend disbelief

sounds like hes specifically talking about realism and suspension of disbelief with realism.
Consistancy has nothing to do with that.

Christ. The point of an extreme example is to essentially express "where does this logic end? Where is the fine line?"

Basically, if you reduce every inconsistent error down to "it's fiction" then how can you argue against extreme examples like the one I gave? Who determines what is extreme and how extreme it is? At what point does "it's all fiction bro!" become invalid?

>A lore problem in a company held in high regard to their game's deep history.
>Anywhere near the same as a gag a episode cartoon.

No. He specifically mentioned consistency errors. Retards love confusing the two. Whenever you mention something is inconsistent there will always be retards that go"just fiction you realistfag!!" "omg suspension of disbelief" because God forbid writers become lazy in fiction and anything is inconsistent. People will just accuse you of wanting "realism" for everything.

>How dare you try to correct us! Fucking nerd!

>No. He specifically mentioned consistency errors

No he doesn't he says realism.
and until the OP says "oh yeah I meant consistancy" when I said realism you're just going to be wrong.

Blowing shit up and going WELL IN THIS WACKY SITUATION IT'S A DUMB IDEA doesn't work. That's pretty much two steps from a straw man.

anyone have the gif version of this image?

Holy fucking shit you illiterate, are you baiting? Fucking read the OP. I quote

">point out consitency error in video game"
Retard he is making fun of: ">lol chill out bro this game has dragons and magic who cares if it isnt unrealistic"

This is literally the exact fucking quote. Fucking hell.

As for your other point, read my post above it. I explain the purpose of using a "wacky" example.

The original poster of the chain of replies user.

The overall topic is about consistency. That's what literally everyone here is arguing. That guy's post is not a reply to someone else's, therefore it is obvious it is a comment on the thread at hand. It's ironic, because he is the exact type of retard that confuses the two. Not only that, but he argued with me about consistency, instead of arguing that he was talking only abou realism like you are arguing with me now.

No user, first guy says realism, likely talking about realism, because he says realism, and how his friends can't suspend disbelief because he says disbelief.
second guy uses some crazy example with spongebob, and consistancy
and I'm correcting the second guy by using a realism example.

Simple as that user.

Honestly I let go of my autism when I realized the point of most stories is to convey a sense of drama and tension. Anything else is just whatever and as long as things make sense from an event perspective usually it's fine. The real question should be if the content is actually good or entertaining, production values and technical writing bullshit be damned.

Let's say two guys get into a fight. How these guys settle it out doesn't really matter. "Why didn't he just swing his sword at him when he wasn't looking why was he just making a big speech?" Doesn't fucking matter. The motivations between the characters and them resolving what they want is more important. Metal Gear Solid cutscenes REQUIRE you to ignore the anime bs and just focus on the characters because when you account for ingame snake vs cutscene snake it just isn't worth it.

Idk let go and just focus on the emotional context and you'll lead a better life.

Then how come you are the one saying this instead of him? How come he continued the conversation from the same logic of consistency? I don't understand why you have to explain what he said, unless you are the same person.

well as you can see from my name yes I'm anonymous.

>just focus on the emotional context and you'll lead a better life
Are you a woman?

It's only game
Why you heff to be mad

I feel the same in MGS threads

I think it's apparent, from his argument about the example provided, that he thinks realism and consistency are one and the same. That, to me, seems very apparent, otherwise I would be having this discussion with him and not you. Seems like it's just a get out of jail card saying "oh i was actually talking about this" after the fact that he already had replied to the argument rather than dismissing it from the get go not having someone else do it for him.