Originally Posted by Talek Krell
Something is plausible when it makes sense within the context. Civilizations learning to create and use nanites and then using the nanites to assemble things is plausible, for example.
|
No. Not assemble things. Assemble floating tanks. Assemble people, back to
life.
Originally Posted by Talek Krell
Something is implausible when it does not make sense within the context. Civilizations going to war with each other and deciding to design and use an unnecessarily expensive and impractical vehicle when a variety of more sensible options are available is implausible, for example.
|
Expensive? Really? Do you watch films going "I can't believe this. Their government wouldn't allow them to blow that up, the collateral would be too expensive"?
Impractical? So what? It's a game. I refuse to believe you can see corpses being brought to life, troops surviving rocket launchers to the face and tank drivers teleporting in and out of their vehicles, but a cockpit with legs is just a
stretch too far.
Originally Posted by Talek Krell
Punching yourself in the genitals is easier than making an omelette. What is your point? And if what were to have legs? Are you suggesting that we use some form of legless mechanized walker?
|
On the implausibility scale, resurrection places a hell of a lot higher than a primitive mech. That's the point.
If you couldn't imagine any kind of mech gelling with the aesthetics of the other characters on the battlefield, that'd be fine, but the argument you're trying to push here is either disingenuous silliness, or the mechanics of your suspension of disbelief are truly the
most bizarre of anyone on the planet.