Chazore said:
It's a matter of the stresses materials can stand, the point is just how much weight the whole structure adds up to.
Think about how big a moon is, once you get to a certain size gravity starts to become an issue. The Death Star is enormous, made of nothing but dense solid materials like metals, which are themselves heavy, to prevent all of that mass being crushed down into a single dense point the materials have to be well beyond anything we can even manufacture with modern manufacturing methods.
Ok I'm not going to get into real life archeticual science vs fantasy, that gets super deep that there's no need to even go as far, the DS blew up twice to two seperate faults and the Empire boasted their power and it blew up, to me that's a flaw and that's all there is.
It is what it is, when you look at visual evidence you can't say, "well if this happened differently", it happened in the movie how it did.
That'd be like saying a stop motion puppet animation detailed how the battle of somme looked and played and saying it is what it is, only they didn't account for how it fully looked, if you look at the actual visual fx it's just fireworks, looking at episode 1-3 explosions outdo most visual explosions from the original trilogy, to me that shows visually how much damage is done compared to a few sparklers and a model slowly going into a minature flat based model.
Actually how that's represented in the movie is right, the Death Star is already an enormous structure, many times bigger than the Executor, made of solid metal, it's like shooting a bullet at a tank, the tank just shrugs off that impact, best case a scratch would be left.
Yeah it's much bigger and it can stand the pressure and all that, what I'm getting at is the damage it did, it;s not akin to a mere bullet wound, it was more than that and would have caused some rgeat internal damage, it also didn't help that afterwards the DS exploded anyway so it recieved double the damage along the way.
The Executor hit a solid, dense portion of the hull, the V Bomber hit glass, then went inside, the two aren't even remotely comparable events.
I wouldn't just say mere glass, like you said for the DS it had to be built with strong materials to withstand gravity, density and all that, it would have had proper framing and beams to support itself.
It's not an example of material weakeness, it's an example of poor design from a defense point of view, but actually blowing the Death Star up required a huge amount of explosive energy, like I said in order to break something that big apart and essentially vaporize it is in itself a solid example of massively strong materials being in play, it's nothing else.
Proton torpedos seemed to do the job in the end though, the Falcon also fired it's load which was enough to take out standard fighters and not Executor/SD class ships let alone a death star.
Trees I agree on, walls made of Rock definitely, but anything made of some super strong metals like the Death Star is made from or even a huge ship would require way more than your standard rocket or C4 level explosion.
I'd agree to that but by that logic DICE could very well get away and claim every structure is made of such material, ergo we wouldn't get any destructible buildings and that itself is just boring and less detailed.
Star Wars, in universe advanced weaponery should do damage to those kinds of materials, if they were shown to do that kind of damage in the movies or within other cananon events that can be used as evidence from the show.
A personal blaster or even a Rocket shouldn't be able to take out a wall made of the same material that the Death Star's hull's made of. If you can stand within viewing distance of an uber weapon, then it's not an uber powerful weapon.
And I mostly agree with that, I just find that if Han and co can blow up a bunker on Endor completely from the inside out then we should be able to do the same, we should be able to tie an AT-AT till it falls down or crash ships into certain places to do enough damage that it matters.
We have new physics technologies courtesy of GPGPU that DICE should be using in Battlefront. Destruction should get even more realistic.
I find it hard to believe when they renamed their destrive physics to "levolution", I've watched plenty of vids on BF4's type destruction and then it being compared to their previous works, BC2 still gives the user more levels of destruction, maybe not extreme fine detail but I find leveling a whole building a lot more fun and realistic than blowing out one floor and seeing only the steel beams left and the rest of the building is magically supported.
I also saw what their engine could do for an RTS for the first time and we all saw how that turned out, generals 2 got canned and we never got to see what that was capable of let alone what destruction could have been caused within the battlefield of that game.
DICE has said Battlefront won't be BF with an SW paintjob, to be fair we haven't yet seen anything of the actual game in play, so to judge it based on no evidence isn't really fair.
That's the thing, just saying it doesn't make it all right with the world, for some people that's 100% enough for them to go on but for some of us it's not that simple, we want results, gameplay and we want it to stand up from now till release rather than shown now and changed drastically by release a la Watchdogs.
I know we haven't seen anything but that doesn't mean we can't criticise how the game is going to be and how it's being handled, if we can't then I guess we should all join hands and tell Jim to take down his recent battlefront video if he can't point out what's wrong with it or what can be wrong with it.
|