> 2533274880692195;9:
> > .
When the first computers saw light, some predicted that today’s computer would only weigh a ton.
Of course we can make guesses. I’d say it’s quite safe to assume watercrafts for military purposes would be abandoned quite fast after we’d get aerial crafts running with fusion power. Even civilian transportation would most likely be abandoned. For recreational purposes? Maybe not, transport? Most likely. Large cargo transport is another question. Why do you think I assume that? Because of cost effectiveness.
Fuel costs a lot today and is one reason why civilian transport by air is so expensive. Especially over long distances. They’re also limited in how much cargo they can take. Air cargo transport is however still used.
The thing about new technologies not replacing older ones. That’s up to the user. The examples you provided are different experiences, not an “obsolete” version of another. A theatre play is an entirely different experience than a movie. A video game is another experience than a book. Even a recorded theatre play is another experience than a movie.
3D printing is replacing a lot of the conventional product manufacturing techniques in many factories. CRT’s have been replaced by a lot of different display technologies. Regular tv broadcasts are being put on the internet and taken off the air.
The whole thing with a point of interest, is that it’s an important location for a task or mission. The Covenant’s point of interests have usually been large populated areas as their mission was to exterminate mankind.
Yes, the bottom of the sea is normal terrain to an extent. However from my point of view, the only thing worth putting on the bottom of a body of water is something you want to keep a secret, or some sort of mining facility, which either way could be handeled with drones. A large population requires massive amounts of space which is not only expensive, but it requires a lot of maintenance and very little room for failure.
Also, putting things at such a location from a gameplay perapective, it’ll most likely be on the inside which makes the water a scenery thing and not a gameplay mechanic. If we put gameplay on the outside, in the water, we’re going to have to look at the physics and how much they need to change in order for it to not be gameplay with different visuals. In other words, not really making water a gameplay thing. Put gameplay on the water and you’re facing the same things, troops are limited to watercrafts and land areas. Making the water a void where only certain vehicles can be. Making the vehicles limited. From a gameplay perspective I’d say it’d make water a novelity like the half space mission in Reach. Also, in any such scenario, aerial vehicles would be as effective if not more effective.
You do realise how much a Spartan weigh? If you were to put enough propulsion on a spartan to keep it afloat while moving forward, it’s not swimming anymore. They’ll sink if they’re stationary and they can’t possibly produce the neccesary speeds to stay afloat with their hands and feet alone. Water doesn’t have the same friction as ground and it’s a liquid meaning it’ll move around when something in it moves through it. They lack the density to float like a boat or regular person. They’ll sink.
Being on the bottom then. Logically it’d mean sluggish movement and limited vision. How well that works for gameplay then is another question. As I mentioned, how much do the physics have to change in order for it to be different than combat in the air. If it doesn’t change, water is nothing more than a visual aspect.
I’d say space battles are in the same category, some differences but still in the same category. My opinion is that it’d be better for the gameplay to make games around those aspects than split up one game into several versions, water, ground and space combat.
