Re: Re: Cinematic vs. Vector movement

***
> Not to mention the ultimate goal
> of playability, which OO has nicely highlighted

If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper
rock"?	Call it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.
***

I was with you most of the way til there, LL. By ultimate, I don't think
he
necessarily means only, and perhaps really should have said paramount.

And I would argue that goal is at least first amongst equals, which
include
flexibility and believability. It's the last which is where 'realism'
would
enter the games goals. Not that it's an exact match, but sufficient to
give
the illusion of reality, and that's far more difficult, given the
differences of audience, than simply match given real world models.

Now, GZG products generally do not patronize users' belief, so they have
to
be pretty rigorous, but not arduous.

I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a long history and is
fundamentally a complete science, advanced tech space war based on
vector
mechanics would be more fuzzy than one would first imagine.

After I'd had my kidney ripped out in December, I spent a good deal of
time
on my back watching B5 almost as steadily as Oerjan recently, and I'd
say
we still have somewhat different experiences in analyzing battle
footage.
;->=

The_Beast