
June 23rd, 2004, 04:33 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 17
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: No virgins under the sea?
Quote:
Originally posted by Arryn:
quote: Originally posted by MCArt:
And, more importantly, we are talking about a *game*.
So no reason to come down all real life logical on me
|
Actually, it wasn't you that was the target of my post, it was the thread creator. Quoting you was more relevent to the point(s) I was attempting to convey.
However, since you bring it up, Dom 2's creators have gone out of their way (kudos to IW) to create a game where the pieces, setting, and rules are logical and consistent. Just because something is a game, or fantasy (or both) does not automaticaly imply that you cannot have logic, reason, or consistency. And Dom 2 proves it (or at least tries its very best to).
So the Last refuge of folks who refuse to exercise their aging brain cells, that of saying "it's a game", or "it's fantasy" as an excuse to overlook what they might find as inconvenient issues -- such as virgin girls needing air to breathe -- simply doesn't ... hold water.
That said, remember that gaming is all about having pun, er, fun. I know continuing this discussion further would drive this thread OT very fast, but I want to say that I am not one of the people that usually come up with the excuse of "it's a game, so logical conclusions or vericacy has no place.
I just wanted to point out that since in a game, and a fantasy game at that, there are bound to be inconsistencies due to the dreaded "game balance".* That said, and as has been pointed out in a post below, there is no obvious logical reason why blood slaves, as representations of human virgins, couldn't represent mermaids or Chaste Lizards as well. But I disgress.
*game balance, the evil beast that since the early 80s prevents D&D wizards from wearing armour! 
[ June 23, 2004, 18:20: Message edited by: MCArt ]
__________________
MCA
|