msleeper wrote:
looking at you, ASBusinessMagnet
You really have to suspend disbelief, and stop looking for things to nit pick about. Do Wheatley and the Space Sphere have enough mass to orbit each other? No. Why are they doing it in the ending video then? Because it was funny. Is it remotely probably that shooting at the moon would land you near any of the Apollo landings? No. Why is that what happens? Because it was cool. Also probably to drive home the fact that you are in fact on the moon, because gamers are stupid and I'm sure some play test group didn't "get" it.

Anything unrealistic in an engine that is supposed to be more realistic than life itself is neither cool nor funny. It's Source Engine 2011 we're talking about. If Portal 2 was done in cartoon style, like the comic Portal 2: Lab Rat, I would accept it, but NOT THIS TIME.

ASBusinessMagnet wrote:
msleeper wrote:

looking at you, ASBusinessMagnet
You really have to suspend disbelief, and stop looking for things to nit pick about. Do Wheatley and the Space Sphere have enough mass to orbit each other? No. Why are they doing it in the ending video then? Because it was funny. Is it remotely probably that shooting at the moon would land you near any of the Apollo landings? No. Why is that what happens? Because it was cool. Also probably to drive home the fact that you are in fact on the moon, because gamers are stupid and I'm sure some play test group didn't "get" it.

Anything unrealistic in an engine that is supposed to be more realistic than life itself is neither cool nor funny. It's Source Engine 2011 we're talking about. If Portal 2 was done in cartoon style, like the comic Portal 2: Lab Rat, I would accept it, but NOT THIS TIME.

Yes, but...
||Sorry, but I'm siding with msleeper this time. I understand that it is completely impossible for one core to orbit the other; even if they were massive enough to do some orbiting they'd be orbiting each other like a binary star system. But like msleeper said, I thought it was funny as heck when the space core crossed two inches in front of the camera bleating "spaaaaace". And hey, just because it's improbable that you'd fire a portal right near an Apollo site doesn't make it impossible. I understand you're trying to find the faults in the game that make it less realistic, but honestly, I would much rather have a few tiny inconsistancies in a game than have the space core just zoom by once in a linear motion.

I'm fine with taking a few liberties for storyline devices, especially in VALVe's games, partly because they pay a heck of a lot of attention to pretty much everything else.||

ITT: Nerds 'sperging about pointless details in one of the best video games of the decade.

Seriously, the game is freaking incredible and who cares if some parts weren't 100% realistic or probable. Just enjoy the damn game.

This reminds me of that topic on the SPUF where someone thought a very minor clipping bug (one that didn't make it into the final game) was a game-breaking problem. I'm sorry to be the first to tell you this, but Portal 2 is a GAME. We play games to have fun, not to complain about extremely minor details. And remember, you're using portals to move around in ways that are physically impossible. Don't stress the minor details if the original premise makes no sense to begin with.

Yeah, exactly Remmiz.

msleeper wrote:
Tv tropes link

That will keep him distracted for a month or so.
Also, on the subject of game breaking glitches: AWS34Seh9JA

hanging_rope wrote:
Also, on the subject of game breaking glitches: AWS34Seh9JA

Oh boy that's bad