So is Low-Mid regen.
You are contradicting yourself there wtf. You say that Arthur doesn't have Low-Mid regen because he just regens from major organs damage, but I showed you that the regens at this level are Low-Mid.
Meant to say he isn't regenerating from major organ damage. Was driving so didn't have the time to edit my comment.
Arthur never regenerates from severe organ damage.
Taking several bullets to the body inevitably leads to severe organ damage.
I don't think it should be closed just yet, I think there should be a bit of a discussion on Perception manipulation over time manipulation
Before the upgrades it was. My issue is seeing "Time Slowing Down" in the tutorial/tooltip would and should be more reasonably assumed to be "Time Slows down for Arthur" not the act of literally slowing down time itself.
Guidebook states that time itself is actually slowing down various times. Might not be fitting but ultimately that's what stated. You can argue it doesn't make sense given the setting but then half of the shit within Red Dead wouldn't make sense going by that logic.
It's less about the setting since, as I know there's a literal mission with an actual time traveler, so I'm willing to believe that shit gets wacky but in most other instances something like this, even from a guide book I feel would need a bit more supporting evidence and clarification from like direct sources within the game.
It's also stated within the game itself which is the main thing. The Guidebook just gives further clarification to what Dead-Eye actually does lol
It was accepted by most staff to be time manipulation in the previous thread after a very long 5 page discussion. There is not one piece of evidence in any material that describes it as perception manipulation. Repeatadly throughout the guidebook it states the flow of time is being manipulated, which is no where near out of the norm for the verse. Perception manipulation is pure headcanon and I never knew why it was a point in the first place
Oh, I know, I just meant like literally anything from a character or something else. I guess it's not that big of an issue, but I would be thoroughly convinced if there was even an offhand joking comment from Arthur or an enemy was like "Woah... how'd things get so slow? Am I drunk?"
No, not in game, not in any guidebooks, not by rockstar, and every VA all say its time hax (I know their opinion doesnt matter, but it is worth noting)
Then this discussion is useless, if the ability has only ever been described as time manip. with literally no other source saying otherwise just means that even if you don't believe in it you'd have no proof to prove your point, this thread means nothing.
Yeah it is useless. The original premise of the thread has been rejected btw, the time manip talk just started out of no where
The problem is that this ability is never referenced lorewise. It is never mentioned in characters dialogues and in a description of the lore, it is never shown in a cutscene, it is just used in gameplay phases. The main characters manipulate time but no characters in the games mention this, not even the main ones involved.
People aren't blind or are here to wank characters, we just disagree with the arguments used and the conclusions reached. That's it.
This argument is terrible and is not a good reason to deny adding an ability to a profile. Something doesn't need to be mentioned in dialogue or whatever for it to be a part of a character's overall set of abilities; if we see them do it, then they can do it, and so long as nothing majorly contradicts it or the material states otherwise, then we have no reason to believe that the characters in question can't do the ability or that the ability shouldn't be added to their profile in some manner.
Do you agree with Dead Eye being something that still canonically exists in the verse based on the arguments above?
Some abilities are not mentioned or shown in cutscenes and dialogue but they still have lore descriptions.
This is missing the point of that comparison. It was made to show that just because the verse is grounded to some extent in reality, be it its atmosphere, its storyline, or anything else important to that context. It doesn't mean the verse is lacking in supernatural qualities as one of the main arguments made by the OP is that since the verse is grounded to this extent, it doesn't make sense for these characters to have supernatural abilities. It's evidence of the supernatural and a direct counter to the OP's contention, nothing else.
Not inherently so. It's a conclusion that's derived from assuming the lack of statement in regards to Dead Eye equates to it being game mechanics because other supernatural elements are explicitly or implicitly mentioned. It would be improper to assume that the lack of statement deduces the conclusion of it being game mechanics when the premises don't deductively follow. It can be true that even if this statement wasn't made, the ability can still be canonical. Because of this, we must derive conclusion from induction, and so I ask, why exactly would the assumptions you assert have more validity to them compared to the ones made by us?
Well, on its own I would agree that just the databook statement alone isn't enough for it to be considered as non-game mechanics. That's why we're making a Conductive argument, not a Deductive one. It's an argument that each separately supports the conclusion, and becomes more inductively stronger when collectively evaluated. That's why attacking each point separately misses the argument's intention. It's your burden to explain why the premises we've constructed are improper or don't lead to the probability of the conclusion we've reached being true. I don't believe you have sufficed this burden yet.
If you concede that it can do both, why exactly can't it be the same case here? If you agree that guidebooks are capable of teaching canonical aspects about the verse, while also providing explanations for gameplay. It can be the case that Dead Eye is an actual ability inverse, and the guidebook is implicitly saying it is by mentioning it while also explaining how the ability works.
But therein lies the issue; you are saying that because Dead Eye does not have an explanation within RDR, whether it be from a cutscene, dialogue, or a description in some sort of encyclopedia or similar avenue of exposition, it can only be relegated to being a Game Mechanic. This is simply not true; you do not need an ability to be explicitly described or mentioned within a game's text to conclude that the abilities shown off by the characters are actual, canonical abilities that they can perform.
Unfortunately for me it's true, "unfortunately" because I don't agree at all with how the wiki treats game mechanics and game abilities in general.
I think it would be a better use of your time if you created a separate CRT that deals with Game Mechanics in general instead of focusing on one particular issue you have. As if that's accepted, and the case of Dead Eye is accepted to be Game Mechanics there, we wouldn't require this back and forth that I don't think is going to convince anybody of their position being wrong.
I would do that.
Since it's revising an important wiki page, it would be staff discussions.
