So about jump.

[Arcell]

Yes, I would.

You know.. that whole "realism" thing that people selectively agree with when it suits them...

I'm not going to discuss realism. I'm strictly talking about believability which is an entirely different issue. That would be, things you could believably do in the game world. Either way, something is occurring that is beyond believability.

Either some invisible force is keeping me from jumping on that tent or some invisible force is holding it up. Both scenarios are equally unbelievable to me so I'd prefer the one that doesn't limit where I can jump.

[Preypacer]

I'm not going to discuss realism. I'm strictly talking about believability which is an entirely different issue. That would be, things you could believably do in the game world. Either way, something is occurring that is beyond believability.

Either some invisible force is keeping me from jumping on that tent or some invisible force is holding it up. Both scenarios are equally unbelievable to me so I'd prefer the one that doesn't limit where I can jump.

Yes, that much was clear from the moment you decided to argue it.

First of all, believability and realism fall within the same category... they both share roots in credulity. They go hand-in-hand. If something is "believable", it's because it would be "realistic" for it to happen. If something is "unrealistic", people won't "believe" it. People don't really believe a magician is making an elephant disappear, because it's not very realistic for that to happen. See where I'm going with this? Point is, whatever semantic nonsense you're attempting to pull here... it's not working.

But again.. as I said before, "realism" and "believability" for that matter, are selectively supported around here. So I fully expect the spin, self-contradicting logic, and selective reasoning to continue.

Boy are some of you folks gonna be pissed the first time you try jumping off a moderately high cliff and find you can't because Yoshi-P has decided it wouldn't be possible (which he has stated) to jump beyond a certain height or from certain locations.

I can't wait to see the selective arguments for "realism" popping up over that. I'm going to remind them that it's not "believable" that people would jump from a height that would likely injure them in a realistic situation. And, of course, in that case, "realism" will - again - be shunned as people say "well, it's a fantasy game, it doesn't have to be realistic! Just don't have us take damage!"

Some people around here are so predictably selective in their reasoning, it's like reading a script.

[Arcell]

Yes, that much was clear from the moment you decided to argue it.

First of all, believability and realism fall within the same category... they both share roots in credulity. They go hand-in-hand. If something is "believable", it's because it would be "realistic" for it to happen. If something is "unrealistic", people won't "believe" it. People don't really believe a magician is making an elephant disappear, because it's not very realistic for that to happen. See where I'm going with this? Point is, whatever semantic nonsense you're attempting to pull here... it's not working.

But again.. as I said before, "realism" and "believability" for that matter, are selectively supported around here. So I fully expect the spin, self-contradicting logic, and selective reasoning to continue.

Boy are some of you folks gonna be pissed the first time you try jumping off a moderately high cliff and find you can't because Yoshi-P has decided it wouldn't be possible (which he has stated) to jump beyond a certain height or from certain locations.

I can't wait to see the selective arguments for "realism" popping up over that. I'm going to remind them that it's not "believable" that people would jump from a height that would likely injure them in a realistic situation. And, of course, in that case, "realism" will - again - be shunned as people say "well, it's a fantasy game, it doesn't have to be realistic! Just don't have us take damage!"

Some people around here are so predictably selective in their reasoning, it's like reading a script.

Honestly? I won't make a thread on here about it lol. Unbelievable invisible forces abound, but if I had to pick one I'd pick the less restrictive of the two. That's pretty much all I'm getting at. Both situations are equally unbelievable.

[Drazzan]

Yes, that much was clear from the moment you decided to argue it.

First of all, believability and realism fall within the same category... they both share roots in credulity. They go hand-in-hand. If something is "believable", it's because it would be "realistic" for it to happen. If something is "unrealistic", people won't "believe" it. People don't really believe a magician is making an elephant disappear, because it's not very realistic for that to happen. See where I'm going with this? Point is, whatever semantic nonsense you're attempting to pull here... it's not working.

But again.. as I said before, "realism" and "believability" for that matter, are selectively supported around here. So I fully expect the spin, self-contradicting logic, and selective reasoning to continue.

Boy are some of you folks gonna be pissed the first time you try jumping off a moderately high cliff and find you can't because Yoshi-P has decided it wouldn't be possible (which he has stated) to jump beyond a certain height or from certain locations.

I can't wait to see the selective arguments for "realism" popping up over that. I'm going to remind them that it's not "believable" that people would jump from a height that would likely injure them in a realistic situation. And, of course, in that case, "realism" will - again - be shunned as people say "well, it's a fantasy game, it doesn't have to be realistic! Just don't have us take damage!"

Some people around here are so predictably selective in their reasoning, it's like reading a script.

Somebody with a brain, willing to put across a proper argument on these forums is a rare sight. Keep fighting the good fight, I gave up that fight long ago. Sadly, in this respect, the minority are the ones most often heard, I think many people just keep quiet due to the massive amount of stupidity that can reside around here. It's a shame really. I'm sure we'd have some great ideas if we all put our heads together.

[Nox]

Somebody with a brain, willing to put across a proper argument on these forums is a rare sight. Keep fighting the good fight, I gave up that fight long ago. Sadly, in this respect, the minority are the ones most often heard, I think many people just keep quiet due to the massive amount of stupidity that can reside around here. It's a shame really. I'm sure we'd have some great ideas if we all put our heads together.

um what? lol, Ok I'll agree with you that people on these forums are less than luster, but still. Quite a lot of the changes they made and ARE making into ARR came directly from the forum you so call full of "stupidity". Things are not so black and white.

but I digress, As per the OPs original post. I'm somewhat torn in this department. While I would appreciate realism in such areas as the one you mentioned, At the same time it would just be like, so what? it goes both ways I think, its damn if you do and damn if you don't. If you put an invisible wall on there people will be like "that's limiting omg rageeee", and if you don't then we have other people saying "why can people stand in this type of texture without it collapsing" so yea. Given that this IS a game I would say it isn't that important to limit people from jumping on these tents, or w/e they are. Of course that is my personal opinion.