Note: LucasForums Archive Project
The content here was reconstructed by scraping the Wayback Machine in an effort to restore some of what was lost when LF went down. The LucasForums Archive Project claims no ownership over the content or assets that were archived on archive.org.

This project is meant for research purposes only.

SWBF II = Messed Up! ("realism" debate)

Page: 2 of 3
 Redtech
10-12-2005, 11:58 AM
#51
Yeah, I'm beginning to see your point as a direct counter to the Jetpack's effectiveness anyway. Maybe if they replaced the Jetpack trooper with the Blaze Trooper. That'd be a lot better actually. Because it'd have the heavy armour but slow walking speed, so you'd need to fly mainly to get around, but have a flame thrower.

SORTED.
 CidCaldensfey
10-12-2005, 12:15 PM
#52
I just think that an directed-energy weapon is a little impractical. It's possible, yes, but it just seems impractical to already existing weaponary.

But then again, this is just nitpicking.
 clonearcman
10-12-2005, 3:07 PM
#53
About how these weapons are realistic. They are real but most of them are not totally perfected or they are so expensive that most companies don't use them. That or else they are hidden and i've never seen em
 Redtech
10-12-2005, 3:49 PM
#54
WTMFFF???!

Do you live in the same universe as we do? None of those Star Wars weapons are real.

Give me an M60 over a Stormtrooper POS any day.
 CidCaldensfey
10-12-2005, 3:52 PM
#55
About how these weapons are realistic. They are real but most of them are not totally perfected or they are so expensive that most companies don't use them. That or else they are hidden and i've never seen em

Right. Thats sort of what I'm trying to get at. The technology is there but already existing technology is better than what is being proposed. So using something which is new, but not as efficient, is just another form of downgrading one's self.

But as far as I'm concerned, about the topic of the electric gun, it's very much possible and perhaps in the Star Wars Universe it's better than a flamethrower. But theres just some other issues with it (IE: Not as visible as a flamethrower, could be mistaken for force lightning, haven't ever seen a lightning gun in any of the films or games.)

The closest I've seen as far as 'lightning guns' in Star Wars was that one time where R2-D2 shot a bolt out of it's little, uh, stickthingy..


That sounded wrong ;_;
 MachineCult
10-12-2005, 5:52 PM
#56
WTMFFF???!

Do you live in the same universe as we do? None of those Star Wars weapons are real.

Give me an M60 over a Stormtrooper POS any day.

Someone should make a vietnam war era weapon mod...
 CidCaldensfey
10-12-2005, 6:07 PM
#57
Someone should make a vietnam war era weapon mod...

As long as the LAW and M60 aren't available for the same class.
 nightmarenny
10-12-2005, 6:55 PM
#58
:blubeam:
Here is one of <b>many</b> companies which are making laser based plasma weapons:
http://www.ionatron.com/default.aspx?id=7)


'Lightning guns' are real and do exist. They are not science fiction.
Eh they are still stupid.

Theres also some other things being made like a gauss rifle which really does fire projectiles by using magnets. Sort of like some of the new generation rollercoasters coming out.

I think theres even an Ion Cannon which was made to shoot down nuclear warheads, but I've only seen it once. So it might be fake.

As for the lightning gun, I do think that is kind of ridiculous. I don't really know how, ah, useful a gun with short-ranged capabilities would be in a firefight as those presented in the Star Wars universe. The only possible application is for a heavy unit, which is armored, to force the enemy to engage in relative close combat so that the ranged forces, on the same side as those having to be sent in for close-combat, would be able to advance while the enemy concentrates on those up close.

Though I agree, an lightning gun in Star Wars is kind of ridiculous. It's powered by the Dark Side! ;P

Maybe if the jetpack commandos had flamethrowers. That would be a little more practical.
__________________________

Also Zerted, that is a very interesting find. How did you come across this? I know that the United States was working, and showed off mind you, this laser beam weapon last year. It was this giant red dish turret which was mounted on a structure and actually could shoot down artillery shells.
Guess rifles as well as railguns are very interesting. I'm not sure but I have seen a weapon which would track a nuke or other long range weapons and use a photon laser to cause it to explode which might be what you are talking about.

I was not talking about the Jet troopers emp gun. That I can deal with. I mean the pilots "lightning gun.
 zerted
10-12-2005, 8:29 PM
#59
Current 'Lightening guns' exist, but are not hand held or moblie. Until then, you will not hear much about them. The Jet Trooper's emp gun is also possible to be made with current day techonology:

1) You need some type of rocket lanucher.
2) It fires missles that have a EMP generator in its head (instead of explosives).
3) Using some type of radar/GPS/IR/Heat sensors, right before it impacts its target, the EMP generator goes on, thus causing an EMP to be created. Any non-shielded electronics will be fired.

The reason such a weapon does not exist: It would be much cheaper to just shield all electronics from EMP, then it would to design such a weapon, only to have the enemy shield all its electronics when word gets out the weapon is being developed.

Current laser weapons are laser mounted on planes to burn missiles' guidence systems so they crash without reaching their target, or heating up the missile's fuel till it explodes before reaching its target. There are ground based laser weapons to blind other enemies, but such weapons are banned by the Genova Convention.
 CidCaldensfey
10-12-2005, 9:12 PM
#60
Either way though, the lightning gun doesn't seem like a practical weapon, but rather just a 'wow its cool'.

I suppose thats a good enough reason to have it...I don't know. It just seems kind of silly to be running around, jetpacking all over the place..only to shoot tendrils of electricity at people.
 zerted
10-12-2005, 10:16 PM
#61
Yea, I'm not saying that the weapons in SWBF2 are good/bad/make sense for the game, I'm just saying that some of them do exist (to a degree) and that others are possible (but not probable) to make.
 Kurgan
10-13-2005, 1:01 AM
#62
Sort of like the hand-held chainguns in so many other FPS games?

I think what people are trying to say here is that some of these weapons don't "feel like they belong in Star Wars" for whatever reasons... whether you agree or not, in any case.
 CidCaldensfey
10-13-2005, 1:36 AM
#63
Yeah, that makes sense. Theres always room for change though.

As far as Star Wars goes though, I really don't know if at any point in the series there really is a gun like that. The only electro-weapon I remember is R2D2s little stun rod thing, as I said earlier.

The electrogun wouldn't really bother me if it just were a little bit visable. In a fire fight, with everything being so fast, it's just hard to see it.
 Redtech
10-13-2005, 5:25 AM
#64
Yeah, I can agree on that. But then again, don't use pilot much in SWBF1 except for piloting!
 TK-8252
10-13-2005, 8:00 AM
#65
As far as Star Wars goes though, I really don't know if at any point in the series there really is a gun like that. The only electro-weapon I remember is R2D2s little stun rod thing, as I said earlier.

That was actually an arc welder (in Star Wars they're not like real-life arc welders). I don't think it would be very effective running around with an arc welder shocking people. :p
 zerted
10-13-2005, 5:37 PM
#66
Some people run around with nail guns...
 Kurgan
10-13-2005, 7:31 PM
#67
Only if they are battery powered...

Speaking of which, that reminds me of that time this guy at work was firing his nail gun at people. What a nut.
 CidCaldensfey
10-13-2005, 9:11 PM
#68
Only if they are battery powered...

Speaking of which, that reminds me of that time this guy at work was firing his nail gun at people. What a nut.

Story time!

Can you tell us what happened? The full story, if possible. I don't think talking about here though would be right. Maybe in a new thread.



As for the current realism debate, yeah. I didn't know what weapon R2D2 had but thanks for clarifying with me what it was.
 nightmarenny
10-13-2005, 10:59 PM
#69
Well considering screen shots of the unit select show that they now have some sort of shot gun everything should be ok. Assuming ofcourse that the Dark trooper Lightning gun doesn't suck.
 clonearcman
10-14-2005, 11:48 AM
#70
Isn't it kind of funny. In the Star Wars Universe, technology is obviously more advanced. You would think that if we (being more primitive) could shield electronics from EMP charges; you would think that the Confederate Systems would simply put the protective devices on the droids to make the clones' EMP grenades and launchers useless.
 Darth Alec
10-14-2005, 12:36 PM
#71
How would the movies end up then? Huh? Still the Viceroy is to cheap to do that, so they lost the war.
 clonearcman
10-14-2005, 2:03 PM
#72
The movies wouldn't change at all. You don't see any EMPs. And believe me. The Viceroy would do it even tho hes a pathetic cowering little weakling. Hes not THAT stupid.
 Kurgan
10-14-2005, 6:23 PM
#73
This is just more proof that Palpatine is controlling everything. He simply made Dooku promise to keep them from using that technology.

I can just picture the scene now:

Seperatist official: If we simply EMP shielded our forces, our chances of victory would be greatly increased, don't you...

Dooku (waves hands): No, there are too many of them.

Seperatist official: Excuse me?

Dooku (waves hands again): There are too many.

Seperatist official: Why is it that every time I get a good idea or suggest a sensible strategy, you start mumbling about there being too many. Huh???

Dooku (waves hands again): Far too many.

Seperatist official: What, just because you were some kinda Jedi, you think you can convince me by waving your hands around like that?

Dooku (waves hands once more): Sorry, too many.

Seperatist official: That's it, you're fired! Guar---

Dooku: I don't like the way this is going (quickly zaps the guy to death with lightning)

Dooku: Whew, that was close. *bzzzt* (comlink) please send up the next highest ranking official, I have to discuss something with him...
 vej-manden
10-15-2005, 11:40 AM
#74
SWBF 2 would still be a crappy game if they made it "realistic".
 boinga1
10-15-2005, 4:20 PM
#75
And yet, it still is! ;)
 zerted
10-15-2005, 7:13 PM
#76
SWBF 2 would still be a crappy game if they made it "realistic".
Maybe because life isn't a computer game.
 TK-8252
10-15-2005, 7:34 PM
#77
Maybe because life isn't a computer game.

Lies, all lies...
 zerted
10-15-2005, 7:40 PM
#78
Lies, all lies...
lol. Thats why I said "<i>Maybe</i>"...
 vej-manden
10-18-2005, 5:53 AM
#79
Crosshairs also shouldn't be in the game. I didn't see any crosshairs floating in front of the troopers in the movies ;P
 MachineCult
10-18-2005, 6:10 AM
#80
Alright, while we're at it, lets get rid of the weapon display, and the Radar, and you know what, there wasn't a ticket count over troopers heads, we can GUESS whether we're winning or losing.
 010_sWitch_010
10-18-2005, 6:12 AM
#81
Crosshairs also shouldn't be in the game. I didn't see any crosshairs floating in front of the troopers in the movies ;P

that would look strange, make it hard to play and be quite amusing all at the same time.
 Dagobahn Eagle
10-18-2005, 8:07 AM
#82
Alright, while we're at it, lets get rid of the weapon display, and the Radar, and you know what, there wasn't a ticket count over troopers heads, we can GUESS whether we're winning or losing.
Way to not understand sarcasm. Congratulations:D.

SWBF 2 would still be a crappy game if they made it "realistic".

I dislike black-and-white thinking so drop it, OK? Please?
Tonnes of realistic features make a game more fun, just like there are tonnes of unrealistic features that could make it less fun and more complicated. Duh.

And yet, it still is!
Crappy or realistic? If your answer is 'realistic', you're way off. If you mean 'realistic' as in 'accurate', you're even farther off.

Seeing this thread has gone so horribly off-topic, I must digress. See you later.
 Redtech
10-18-2005, 8:08 AM
#83
Well, just to drag it on, there shouldn't be a health bar either. And remember, since most troopers are wearing eyepieces, their field of view should be rubbish (E.g Republic commando). And also, don't forget the classic "shoot the gun out of their hands/shoot their leg grenades" scenario.

Oh, and every attack is an insta kill. I doubt many troopers would survive a punch from a SBD.

Come to think of it...I want melee attacks!
 zerted
10-18-2005, 11:39 AM
#84
Any shooter game would be crappy if realistic. Go join a war if you want realistic fighting.
 MachineCult
10-18-2005, 3:17 PM
#85
Way to not understand sarcasm. Congratulations:D.

lol, i just like laying into people.
 TK-8252
10-18-2005, 4:15 PM
#86
Any shooter game would be crappy if realistic. Go join a war if you want realistic fighting.

Not only am I not old enough to join the army, but I really don't want to die, nor do I want to kill people. Considering I've never even held a gun I don't think I'd be very good with one either.

What do you tell all these people who play Grand Theft Auto? "Go join a street gang?" What do you tell all these people who play Madden? "Go join the NFL?"
 Pho3nix
10-18-2005, 4:20 PM
#87
Pfft. I'm not even surprised. Lucasarts haven't done any good games since JK-2.
 clonearcman
10-18-2005, 8:16 PM
#88
You guys should listen to yourselves. Listen its STAR WARS. Not saying everything in the game is impossible but I guarantee you something in there is NOT POSSIBLE. Let alone stupid in the real world. I mean comon, if youre a guy in the forest in a war the LAST thing you would do is dress up in a huge white suit (clone or storm trooper suits for you nutcases). Also, when you guys say it shouldn't have "health bars and cross hairs"; its like you guys have never played another game. Almost everygame I've played you have a health bar or something that tells you when your're about to die. Come to think of it it HAS been every game I've played. And come on lay off on the "join a real war" spazness. It almost sounds like a political fight. Not the place for it.
 zerted
10-19-2005, 2:40 AM
#89
Any shooter game would be crappy if realistic. Go join a war if you want realistic fighting.
I'm saying many games won't be fun if completely realistic. How fun would it be if shots were realistic? You get shot in the leg, you cannot move, but you can still fight a little bit. You get shot in the arm, you drop your weapon and the only thing you can do is walk around, kick other units, and get killed. You get shot anywhere else and you die. There is no need for the health bar.

There is no respawn. If you die, you never come back. You have to reinstall the game to play another round. While some realistic things make a game better, such as being able to shoot through glass and units that carrying heavier weapons move slower, but after a point the more realistic a game gets, the worst it becomes.

Thats what I think. If this was any other thread, I would say lets stop the realism fighting, but since the thread is named ..."realism" debate... bring it on.

I didn't mean to make a political statement, I was thinking a completely realistic game would feel the same as fighting in a war and not many people would like it.

I'm just talking about 1st or 3rd person shooters. I don't consider Grand Theft Auto to be one of them. Everyone, go join a street gang, just make sure it is a friendly, law abiding street gang. Maybe it goes out and picks up the trash on the street. Its motto could be "No one gets hurt when we come to town".
 clonearcman
10-19-2005, 5:55 PM
#90
I think this thread has lost its point. arcman out
 Windu Chi
10-20-2005, 12:34 PM
#91
I'm saying many games won't be fun if completely realistic. How fun would it be if shots were realistic? You get shot in the leg, you cannot move, but you can still fight a little bit. You get shot in the arm, you drop your weapon and the only thing you can do is walk around, kick other units, and get killed. You get shot anywhere else and you die. There is no need for the health bar.

There is no respawn. If you die, you never come back. You have to reinstall the game to play another round. While some realistic things make a game better, such as being able to shoot through glass and units that carrying heavier weapons move slower, but after a point the more realistic a game gets, the worst it becomes.

Thats what I think. If this was any other thread, I would say lets stop the realism fighting, but since the thread is named ..."realism" debate... bring it on.

I didn't mean to make a political statement, I was thinking a completely realistic game would feel the same as fighting in a war and not many people would like it.

I'm just talking about 1st or 3rd person shooters. I don't consider Grand Theft Auto to be one of them. Everyone, go join a street gang, just make sure it is a friendly, law abiding street gang. Maybe it goes out and picks up the trash on the street. Its motto could be "No one gets hurt when we come to town".
I totaly disaree with you realism is the future of great games if you want to play stupid games that is unrealisted go play kids games.Besiides the Force may be a realisted power, if you study physics some unknown energy that is called Dark Energy it may be the living Force. So when I mean realisted I don't discount that things in Star Wars can happen, because I understand the physics and the infinite possibilities.
 MachineCult
10-20-2005, 2:50 PM
#92
You mean realistic within the realisms of the Star Wars Universe.
 TK-8252
10-20-2005, 4:06 PM
#93
Besiides the Force may be a realisted power, if you study physics some unknown energy that is called Dark Energy it may be the living Force. So when I mean realisted I don't discount that things in Star Wars can happen, because I understand the physics and the infinite possibilities.

...I think that's where your argument just lost all credibility. :p

The Force is real? XD
 Windu Chi
10-20-2005, 4:37 PM
#94
...I think that's where your argument just lost all credibility. :p

The Force is real? XD So you calling me a religious nut; I just speaking of pure physics pit up a book on Dark Energy. Also if you got a scientific mind you will understand my reasoning.

Remember nothing impossible ! :lsduel:
 TK-8252
10-20-2005, 4:40 PM
#95
Unless George Lucas is God, the Force doesn't exist.
 Windu Chi
10-20-2005, 4:56 PM
#96
Unless George Lucas is God, the Force doesn't exist.
Then you must not be a true STAR WARS fan.
 Micahc
10-20-2005, 5:52 PM
#97
Then you must not be a true STAR WARS fan.

Guess most of the people here arn't "true Star Wars" fans then. And if you don't want a health bar wait for the King Kong game to come out.
 Arc-453
10-20-2005, 7:11 PM
#98
*flaming removed* ~ET
 nightmarenny
10-20-2005, 7:36 PM
#99
Well, just to drag it on, there shouldn't be a health bar either. And remember, since most troopers are wearing eyepieces, their field of view should be rubbish (E.g Republic commando). And also, don't forget the classic "shoot the gun out of their hands/shoot their leg grenades" scenario.

Oh, and every attack is an insta kill. I doubt many troopers would survive a punch from a SBD.

Come to think of it...I want melee attacks!
Acturaly come year 2020 all american soldiers will have a display that gives basic medical data. By the time we make hand held weapons-grade laser we probably will have a health bar. Also first person veiw is already crap compared to normal human vision.
 MachineCult
10-20-2005, 8:33 PM
#100
Then you must not be a true STAR WARS fan.

So you're saying that "true STAR WARS fans" are lunatics? Who believe the force exists.
Page: 2 of 3