Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
but it is a game so everything is possible^^
Realism means different things to different people. For some the notion of unshielded plasma state persisting in an atmosphere would be akin to ... fish swimming on land/air or rain falling from the ground into the sky maybe? It would just make no sense, like loud explosions in vacuum. If you create a game and go btw the laws of physics as we know them don't apply here ... Then what kind of laws do apply? I mean we only know that one set of rules, and i somehow don't think devs would like to create a entirely new set of laws including their consequences.
There is nothing wrong with plasma weapons, it just needs to be plausible. Its the difference between Sci-fi and Fiction. Between Star Trek and Star Wars, between a virus creating zombies and a necromancer magicing them in etc.
In other words its the difference between "hey this could be in the future!" and "this is never ever going to happen". Both can be nice story telling experiences, but ark seems set on a path of sci-fi already. I wouldn't advise to mix the two elements, it would be like a cross between star wars and star trek, you just piss of everyone :D.