Jump to content

KingNor

Members
  • Posts

    2003
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by KingNor

  1. other than a head swap and loading standard fastpacks and a gun, how is a VT-1 incapable of fighting?

    maybe in the macross world it makes more sense to have fighters do nothing but train?

    Later on, pilots train in single seat VFs, but early on, they go tandem. I don't see why this is so hostile to your perceptions.

    because he said "combat capable" and you took that to mean that trainees are shooting at each other with live ammo and missles.

    his point is EXACTLY that the plane trains dry, but CAN be loaded with live ammo.

    This is true of most military traininy machines, in the Marines they have "training" M1 Abrams. the trainee's drive them through the mud and learn on them. when it comes time to do live fire training, they use the exact same training machiens to fire the main gun and machine guns.

    It doesn't make much sence to waste time and money building special training vehicles if you can help it. you can always just make dummy weapons for the standard combat vehicle to make training less dangerous.

    To be honest i think the VT trainer from DYRL IS a purpose built training vehicle. I think that is where reality stops and anime takes over. The VT is a plot device more than anything. Same as the VF-1D. But I still maintain that there is really NOTHING in SDFM that implicates VF-1D's are strictly trainers.

    It doesn't make much sence to build a purpose built trainer when you could just give a standard VF a flashlight gunpod and remove the lenses or what ever from its lasers. It would certainly make more sence than stocking a squadron of training planes on an already stuffed combat ready SDF-1.

    But like i said, its anime. who needs reality amirite??

  2. i dont' think there is enough info on the VF-1D to make arguing about it productive.

    In the end all we see is that it's a 2 seater, CAN participate in combat, and MAY be used for training dispite any direct indication that it actually IS used for any kind of training. oh and that at least one of them was painted orange and brown.

    Given that stageringly small amount of info, you can pretty much think what ever you want about it with no evidence to prove you wrong.

    Personally i think it was probably a live fire testing machine, maybe even an early run to test fesability of having a back seater. It's obviously fully combat ready, but maybe there are only a hand full of them since we only see what.. two?? in the whole serise?

    The fact that it's bright orange makes me think it's a test/protoype/experimental plane. orange doesn't usually mean "trainer" in the military, it usually means "test"

    IPB Image

    It may even be a prerunner to the elint and ostrich (sp?) variants that came out later.

    but like i said, there is next to no evidence as to what it's for and my speculation tells us more about what i want it to be than what it is.

  3. 300 years is a damn long time for todays A.D.D. ridden rug-rats. It's not like any of kids in schools now-a-days have any idea what was going on 300 years ago, to them its pre-history.

    For all they know maybe we DO fight off monsters every 300 years. afterall there used to be dinosaurs right? and those are like.. 800 years old or something, what ever watch me to a kickflip on tony hawk 39

  4. Not unless Link was multi-generational time traveling clone or an immortal. LoZ is the standard for "drag and drop" games.

    Marrying together the various games is basically time killing because when you have to 'start over' with a bare bones character every time, unless the producers absolutely state that Zelda is in the same universe, it's in a different universe.

    Just play the game for what it's know for nostalgia.

    to be perfectly honest, the only game where i can recall that link is actually called "LINK" by the dev team was Nes Zelda

    and its not impossible for each tale to be a new person. I still stand by the idea that the games are ambiguous enough for people to sub in almost any connecting ideas they want.

    I have to admit though the designers seem to be adding little snippets of story that tie the games together, the note in the retrospective about how NES Zelda is the only zelda where gannon is actually DESTROYED is an intresting thought. they claim that makes nes zelda the last in the time line.. with the exception of the two Game Boy Color Zeldas.

    Ambiguous is good though, its nice to be able to imagine every once in a while. thats why i liked the thought that the games aren't specifically tied to gether in anyway. i could imagine what i wanted. I'm a little sad to see that an effort is being made by nintendo to tie the games together.

    its all good though.

  5. the thing is, zelda as a franchise always has similar themes and recurring characters. i havn't been playing all the way through any of the recent games but i've never seen anything that specificaly said "remember last time, that thing that happend in the last game?"

    it's always ambiguous at best. You'll probably be able to find a few little things that could tie the games together, but it's a zelda staple to make the preceeding games essentially irrelevant to the newest game.

×
×
  • Create New...