Naval combat: everything about this is wrong

  • 129 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by Patman99 (1620 posts) -

@zombiebigfoot said:

Is it kind of stupid and pointless? Sure. But I hardly see how it's something worth getting this pissed off over. It'll probably be a short sequence in the game, not something that's forced upon you throughout the entire thing.

This. I mean past AC games had you using a winged flying machine that would get massive increases in altitude by small fires. They are simply taking a fairly slow paced and probably fairly mundane concept and making it more video gamey. I mean if you want realistic naval battle, might as well play a strategy game and not an action-adventure game centred on platforming and close quarter combat.

#102 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013

@The_Nubster said:

@Example1013 said:

@The_Nubster: You're right, clearly the idea of a master assassin being able to kill someone with one shot or land safely in a large bale of hay is just as unrealistic as a giant ship being able to turn with the speed of a car, or the idea of 5 giant ships in a row blowing up after getting hit with rocks.

Yes. Using knives and 15th century guns as one-hit kills isn't realistic. Breaking a fall with a bale of hay is unrealistic. All of these things are unrealistic, from the jumping/climbing/science-magic to the 'arcade' naval combat. You're not picking the right aspect of that game to get anal about.

So what you're saying is, there is no spectrum of realism, and a one-hit kill with a knife is equally as unrealistic as Ezio fighting Cthulhu with a hedge trimmer made of rainbows.

What he's saying is that to hold the game's naval combat to an expectation of realism that is not matched by other design elements that are fantastic in their own way is absurd.

Your logic is flawed in that you assume my expectations aren't matched by other elements. That is a false statement because the only expectation I stated was a non-zero level of realism, which I think is the same level of realism that the rest of the mechanics hold to.

#103 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013

@The_Nubster said:

@Example1013 said:

@The_Nubster: You're right, clearly the idea of a master assassin being able to kill someone with one shot or land safely in a large bale of hay is just as unrealistic as a giant ship being able to turn with the speed of a car, or the idea of 5 giant ships in a row blowing up after getting hit with rocks.

Yes. Using knives and 15th century guns as one-hit kills isn't realistic. Breaking a fall with a bale of hay is unrealistic. All of these things are unrealistic, from the jumping/climbing/science-magic to the 'arcade' naval combat. You're not picking the right aspect of that game to get anal about.

So what you're saying is, there is no spectrum of realism, and a one-hit kill with a knife is equally as unrealistic as Ezio fighting Cthulhu with a hedge trimmer made of rainbows.

What he's saying is that to hold the game's naval combat to an expectation of realism that is not matched by other design elements that are fantastic in their own way is absurd.

Your logic is flawed in that you assume my expectations aren't matched by other elements. That is a false statement because the only expectation I stated was a non-zero level of realism, which I think is the same level of realism that the rest of the mechanics hold to.

Assassin's Creed III is an action game, not a naval simulation. If it really bothers you this much, maybe you should play P.T.O. or something.

#104 Edited by SirPsychoSexy (1331 posts) -

So falling hundreds of feet into a bale of hay and walking it off without a scratch is not a problem, but cannonballs causing explosions is? Get over it dude, it looked fucking awesome.

#105 Posted by ahgunsillyo (458 posts) -

@Jazzycola said:

@Example1013 said:

Yeah ezio and altair did some pretty crazy, impossible stunts, but they never completely ignored every aspect of things like 'inertia' or 'gravity'.

So falling from a 30 story building into a haystack isn't completely ignoring 'inertia' or 'gravity'? It's dramatized for your entertainment. Who really wants to maneuver a ship around for hours to get 1 shot off? And if you really want to jump down the rabbit hole of logically nitpicking, why are you playing a video game? Logically speaking it's a complete waste of time.

Flash fact: If you actually jump off 30-story buildings into haystacks in real life, you'll emerge completely unharmed. Everybody just thinks it's completely implausible because nobody does it anymore. Who has haystacks lying around next to tall buildings anymore?

#106 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013

@The_Nubster said:

@Example1013 said:

@The_Nubster: You're right, clearly the idea of a master assassin being able to kill someone with one shot or land safely in a large bale of hay is just as unrealistic as a giant ship being able to turn with the speed of a car, or the idea of 5 giant ships in a row blowing up after getting hit with rocks.

Yes. Using knives and 15th century guns as one-hit kills isn't realistic. Breaking a fall with a bale of hay is unrealistic. All of these things are unrealistic, from the jumping/climbing/science-magic to the 'arcade' naval combat. You're not picking the right aspect of that game to get anal about.

So what you're saying is, there is no spectrum of realism, and a one-hit kill with a knife is equally as unrealistic as Ezio fighting Cthulhu with a hedge trimmer made of rainbows.

What he's saying is that to hold the game's naval combat to an expectation of realism that is not matched by other design elements that are fantastic in their own way is absurd.

Your logic is flawed in that you assume my expectations aren't matched by other elements. That is a false statement because the only expectation I stated was a non-zero level of realism, which I think is the same level of realism that the rest of the mechanics hold to.

Assassin's Creed III is an action game, not a naval simulation. If it really bothers you this much, maybe you should play P.T.O. or something.

Please, build more straw men.

#107 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Example1013: It's not a straw man to say that if you want a better simulation of naval combat that you should play a naval combat simulation.

#108 Posted by Giantstalker (1726 posts) -

@ahgunsillyo said:

Flash fact: If you actually jump off 30-story buildings into haystacks in real life, you'll emerge completely unharmed. Everybody just thinks it's completely implausible because nobody does it anymore. Who has haystacks lying around next to tall buildings anymore?

I totally don't believe this, but I'm bidding on 2 tons of straw and a dump truck just to be sure. Will report back with my findings in the morning.

Online
#109 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@Hailinel: Asking for bullet drop physics in an FPS is not asking for a bullet simulator. Or I guess according to you, I should just go play a bullet simulator.

#110 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel: Asking for bullet drop physics in an FPS is not asking for a bullet simulator. Or I guess according to you, I should just go play a bullet simulator.

Well, you weren't asking for bullet drop physics, were you?

#111 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel: Asking for bullet drop physics in an FPS is not asking for a bullet simulator. Or I guess according to you, I should just go play a bullet simulator.

Well, you weren't asking for bullet drop physics, were you?

Do you have some sort of condition or something? Serious question.

#112 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel: Asking for bullet drop physics in an FPS is not asking for a bullet simulator. Or I guess according to you, I should just go play a bullet simulator.

Well, you weren't asking for bullet drop physics, were you?

Do you have some sort of condition or something? Serious question.

This coming from the guy OCD about naval battle accuracy and the physics of ships at sea in an action game. Is this thread one elaborate troll?

#113 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -
@SirPsychoSexy

So falling hundreds of feet into a bale of hay and walking it off without a scratch is not a problem, but cannonballs causing explosions is? Get over it dude, it looked fucking awesome.

Yeah, that shit looked awesome. It pretty much sold me on it.

BTW op, why not just join one of those crews that dress in period costume and sail the seven seas?
#114 Posted by AngelN7 (2973 posts) -

Well good thing most games aren't realistic ... first time you die that's it black screen you're done because reviving corpes is just unrealistic , so is a character that's hit with a pipe in the head and torso he'll need to revice medical attention and probably have to rest for a week before getting out to explore the wasteland using crutches too ... I think you reached the point where playing videogames is not for you anymore just nitpicking stuff for the sake of nitpicking.

#115 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

@Example1013: Where's your thread about the leonardo machine plowing through the Italian wilderness blowing up everything in sight?

#116 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel said:

@Example1013 said:

@Hailinel: Asking for bullet drop physics in an FPS is not asking for a bullet simulator. Or I guess according to you, I should just go play a bullet simulator.

Well, you weren't asking for bullet drop physics, were you?

Do you have some sort of condition or something? Serious question.

This coming from the guy OCD about naval battle accuracy and the physics of ships at sea in an action game. Is this thread one elaborate troll?

I don't know, I'd figure there has to be something wrong if you can't figure out what an analogy is.

@Vinny_Says: If it was in Brotherhood or Revelations then I wouldn't have seen it. I didn't play either of them.

#117 Posted by The_Nubster (2354 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

Please, build more straw men.

From Wikipedia: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

So I said. . .

"Yes. Using knives and 15th century guns as one-hit kills isn't realistic. Breaking a fall with a bale of hay is unrealistic. All of these things are unrealistic, from the jumping/climbing/science-magic to the 'arcade' naval combat. You're not picking the right aspect of that game to get anal about."

To which you responded,

So what you're saying is, there is no spectrum of realism, and a one-hit kill with a knife is equally as unrealistic as Ezio fighting Cthulhu with a hedge trimmer made of rainbows.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you "replac[ed] [my statement] with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition, and refut[ed] it." And Hailinel is building straw men?

#118 Posted by tariqari (431 posts) -

I don't know what the OP is on about. The animatic the OP is referring to (open cow pastures) is going to be far from how the game actually plays (past AC cutscenes and current AC III gameplay footage). It is well known that 'open fields' we're the products of Native American and probably colonial hunting tactics and it was not uncommon to find open territory in PA and MA near major cities for example. I will say one thing though being from CT myself...I don't really get the whole 'cliffs on the water' thing as shown in the 7 min footage. There aren't really any cliffs like that until you wind up further North like in the Maine area. CT shoreline is pretty flat and up to Boston I believe its pretty much the same...but Ubisoft is a French company so I don't expect them to have made a plot for plot recall of the entire North East territory.

Second, this is a video game. Since when did video games or movies become near-reality simulations? This isn't Microsoft Naval Simulator 2000, and even if it was you can bet it will still be unrealistic because it's a video game.

Sorry I don't mean to come out guns blazing but as a writer and editor, I constantly deal with people who are against a fictional story because they claim it was unbelievable. If it weren't fictional then they might be right, but this is fiction and this is a video game. Naturally it won't adhere to the rules of realism.

#119 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

So annoyed at Ubisoft right now. Where are the smoke signals and nascent casinos?

#120 Edited by project343 (2838 posts) -

Whatever. It looked gorgeous. Seemed fun. Why not? I mean, you were best buds with Da Vinci... who also made all of your fucking weapons and stuff.

@Jace: I like you.

#121 Posted by RollingZeppelin (2105 posts) -
#122 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

@RollingZeppelin: Oh, you mean like a grenade?

#123 Posted by Xeirus (1370 posts) -

@nixatron said:

So ships exploding because they got hit by cannon balls killed it for you because that is were you stop believing in it? not the whole dude hops in machine to view his ancestors memories thing? or the balls of magic that have unlimited power? or the weird god alien things? You might as well complain about how he cant possibly climb those buildings because there is no way a human being can hold on to ledges that small while you're at it.

hahah, nice, I approve of this comment

#124 Posted by Bollard (5838 posts) -

@Commisar123 said:

I thought the bigger issue was the fact that it was a pretty turret sequence.

A turret sequence where you have control over movement is not a turret sequence.

#125 Posted by RubberFactory (291 posts) -

Realism.

#126 Posted by SmithCommaJohn (148 posts) -

Gratuitous explosions? In a video game?

HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD?

#127 Posted by Commisar123 (1798 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

@Commisar123 said:

I thought the bigger issue was the fact that it was a pretty turret sequence.

A turret sequence where you have control over movement is not a turret sequence.

Okay, but how much control do you really have? At best it's heavily guided

#128 Posted by boj4ngles (287 posts) -

This is madness!

#129 Posted by Grissefar (2830 posts) -

@FunExplosions said:

I just graduated from History school, and can confirm that the Native Indians did have tomahawks.

Oh, the indigenous people of India? Pretty sure they did not.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.