Is anyone else besides me failing to see any real discussion of Macross Mecha, Weapons and Technology in these latest points? Everything is being discussed "out of context" with points like "
real lasers don't work like lasers in Macross, therefore Macross future warfare is wrong". This latest one is "
transforming mecha don't make sense, so what's the point of the VB-6 Konig?". Shouldn't these "revelations" that Macross lasers and Macross mecha aren't real already be apparent?
Take this for example:
Quote:
|
On land, legs don't provide a stable platform. Actually, they would just be more likely to break, or cause the mech to fall flat on its back. Tracks would be more logical if you wanted it to remain mobile.
|
This isn't discussing Macross technology, it's discussing why we use tracks in the real world and why no one would build a legged machine; because legs would break or cause the mecha to fall flat on its back. And how would we know that? Because that's what happens in the real world. Why doesn't it relate to Macross? Because Macross has so obviously built reliable, practical legs that don't break or cause the mecha to fall flat on it's back. And how would we know that? Because that's what happens in the Macross world.
I'd like to see discussion of Macross Mecha, Weapons and Technology from the basic assumption that it's practical and has a valid purpose. It's then our jobs as the audience to "imagine" why it works. If we're not suspending our disbelief and instead benchmarking Macross by how things work in the "REAL WORLD", where then is the discussion of "Macross Mecha, Weapons and Technology" in the recent pages of this thread?
From what I can tell these latest discussions are really just a way of saying the fictional science of Macross doesn't make sense/doesn't work. We might as well be criticising Star Wars for lightsabers and Star Trek for transporters for all the good it does.
