| Torillian said: Issue with statements about how reasonable it is for a video game character model to be one way or another is that you only have a single person to go on. Single individuals are always an amalgam of different not so likely things. I have a PhD (2% chance), Crohn's disease (1% chance) and am a father of an interracial child (15% chance based on interracial marriage rates). The chances of me being all of those is .01x.02x.15 or .003%, but that doesn't change the fact that I as a single person am those things. If you think it's unreasonable for a game character to be a certain way all you need is a single example of someone being like that in the real world and you're already wrong, even if there's only a single person like that in the entire world because that single character is also just a single person. You'd need multiple people with these traits to meet up randomly before you could say anything about likelihood of an event occuring. |
Guess you are mixing things.
Would it be reasonable to meet you on the street at random? 1 in 7 billions people? Nope. Would it be possible? Yes it would.
So it is possible that someone like her exist (and we have the female that was used as reference that is very similar to her), but is it reasonable as within expectations? Not really. Is it a problem? Of course not, after all life is made of very (un)likely events that are unique when weaved together.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
