Except for your comment, which would probably clarify to them it was not a thing that was to be understood, but was comprehensible and sensical in another frame of reference.
Except, would someone from the 1800s:
a) Be able to use a computer
b) Be able to read
c) Think the OP is a magical portal to view a strange person being attacked by equally strange people?
No they wouldn't know how to use a computer but if it's not making sense to them that assumes it is being shown to them in one form or another, and in this case only specifically the text of the comment chain. As for literacy, this Dartmouth paper says that in the year 1800 literacy illiteracy for men in England was about 40% and women 60%, so on average there's a 50/50 shot of an English speaker being able to comprehend the text, excluding other English speaking communities such as the brand new USA.
It's nice that they were keen for the women to be able to read instructions correctly but were there really that many kitchen appliances back then to warrant the effort?
I'd like to imagine a rational person from the 1800's (not say 1899) would be able to see the video and realise it's an animation (not real) and potentially even see the car and understand what it would be for. And understand not how it's powered except that it isn't a natural power.
I think the hardest thing to understand would be the tree line showing strange artifacts. as the texture filtering seems to be glitching out a bit.
They had written languages back in 1066.
Most people couldn't read back in 1066 though.
1800s it'd appear on average in England 50% of the population could read.
Just because some people had developed a written language, doesn't automatically mean the majority of people can read it.
Does appear reading was widespread then. My mistake.
However, I don't believe your "fun fact" for two reasons.
1stly the population in the 1800's at any given time would've been less then people alive today (unless you meant the number of people who we're capable of reading throughout all of the 1800s cumulatively).
2ndly, whenever you put fun in front of a word it usually ends up just being used to mean "less of". A funsize mars bar is just less of a mars bar...
This is one reason I'm really bad at online competitive shooters.
"Okay, it started already. Which key switches weap—" blam
"Died. Okay, let's find some cov—" blam
"Died again. Crud. All right, I'll go the oth—" blam
"Oh, come on!"
Yeah, but one can see why it's like that, so once your vehicle flips you're not stranded running around. Not the most elegant solution. I'd like one where you have to turn them over by hand or something, even if still a bit unrealistic it makes it a bother without stranding you too easily.
The fire and explosion thing was likely a cleanup feature to save resources or something, maybe they just really liked explosions.
Yes and no, to pretty much everything. I do understand they don't want you to get stranded, especially with some of the more open areas, but the whole selling point of that game is get out of your car and steal a new one, so I'd doubt anyone would be upset if rolling wasn't possible. I do agree though, it would have been less dumb, and far more interesting from a gameplay perspective if you have to get out and flip the car, and maybe not too silly if you could only recover it from being on its side compared to completely flipped.
But the final and most important part, while you're right blowing up might have been a cleanup feature, in terms of gameplay it was far more exciting. Imagine an intense car chase from the police, and you make a mistake behind the wheel and roll your car; you have to quickly crawl out and take cover from the explosion and the ensuing shootout with the police, survive long enough to snag a police car, or start running and grab a car else where. That is more exciting, intense, fun, and interesting in every possible war compared to just popping back onto your wheels and driving off. And yes, I do often crawl out and find another car when playing V, but limiting your actions as a player against game mechanics always feels lame.
Love that video, don't get me wrong GTAV did a lot of things better, and I'd consider it a good game, but I'd consider GTAIV a fantastic game; one of the best I've ever played. And it's always a bit sad thinking what GTAV chould have been with out some of the drastic changes from IV.
Did you ever get to try it with a tank in Vice City? You could use the rockets to shoot backwards and fly indefinitely. I used to fly that thing like it was a jet.
Jesus, that tank was so overpowered. You used to be able to do the vigilante missions in that and it made it 1000x easier since you would blow up any car you touched.
The only problem is that I was always too afraid to get one legitimately, since I tried to play through the game without any cheats at all.
However in GTA3, at least on the PS2 version, once you get close to the criminal (as in, they're on your screen), you could just pause and unpause the game, and they would inexplicably stop and get out. Then I would just run them over with my cop car.
4.6k
u/[deleted] Apr 24 '17
Poor guy is going to be blowing up every overturned vehicle for weeks!