Please read everything. And realism when adding to fun is exactly what I meant in the first place so stop putting me into that corner again like tzlaine and eleazar did. Is it really so hard to read and understand me correctly?
It is simple bullshit (sorry, but it is) to say I was giving/using realism !arguments! as I was only giving a realism background that could possibly serve as encyclopedic description of my feature.Bigjoe5 wrote:Please do not pursue the topic of realism any further. As it is, you are not unwelcome here, but as people have pointed out, realism arguments are.
Realism backgrounds and descriptions serve logical coherence when used properly so a draconian no-realism remarks is as stupid as cutting in your own flesh especially since it's not true to itself anyway because everyone here always uses realism arguments or descriptions somehow.
Just take a look at the recent terrain worlds thread. Don't be stupid about it and close your eyes. Eleazar does it, everyone does it. I just can't stand being put out as the only one especially when I wasn't actually the one who did..
As for the food, who cares. Take Star Trek for example, they got replicators. Imagine a tech where those replicators use this mysterious food and convert it on a submolecular basis into usable food for the other race. When agreeing that each races uses biological food (and no pure iron or lead for example) and food consists of more complex components than those of simple and abundant plants or trees in order to be used as full-value food, it's all about E=mc² and the artistic/realistic choice that biomolecular dismantling and reordering is easier than with other material, isn' it?
Guys, you need to understand that in order to have some sort of logically coherent, exciting explanatory FO universe encyclopedia (which is a real fun thing for most scifi game players and fans), you need to give your decisions some "realism" background thought. You can even rename realism to artistic freedom or whatever, but make yourself some thoughts about the how and why you gonna implement something. Otherwise something is missing later on and possibly you got lots of realism and why is this and that threads later on from players cause you don't have any encyclopedia to refer to. Plus the danger of creating some uberstyle logical exploit (at worst case even on code implementation level) is always there reducing gameplay fun for those who recognize it and take that serious. If you wanna rule out those players and make them shut up, you gonna take a lot of fun (and possibly people) away from the game in my opinion.
It's fine by me if you decide against that and totally neglect such possibilities, but then please don't use me as a scapegoat when you yourself use realism descriptions and back-up-hints in all kinds of threads too. It is wrong to do so only with newcomers particularly when they did nothing wrong, i.e. not the thing they were accused of.