It’s a staged intro, we see one guy slip up on his cue even as they get closer to the ships (the extra character on the steps.)
If you notice there’s already a character out of the water too, ahead of the gek coming out, you also see this player mine something and move to left towards ships (you also hear them enter their ship), could easily be calling companion to him from off screen, hence its apparent direction, there are also still several characters behind camera who were in water that could be directing NPC via way points like in most games with sidekick AI.
I’m not saying it’s definitely NPC just that they very cleverly have hidden things and used misdirection a lot in this trailer.
Notice the things they’re not showing us, for example, like creatures are mostly hidden in the borders or cut just as they enter scene (you see one during the sentinel scene enter screen left just before the scene cuts) and minerals etc are somewhat rare in the trailer too, and then like that sneaky fifth character model etc you really have to zoom in to see, they were very smart about how they presented all of this, left tonnes up to speculation, lots of fun for us nitpicky fans with fine tooth combs
I see you mention a gek get into a ship and fly off but I can’t see any footage of a gek teleport into their ship or go near one, can you pass it on?
Okay, man. Again, its a game. No need to be agressive. And, again, alot isn’t mentioned in the website that was in the trailer so, again, its possible. Also, its not exceedingly clear in the video as 1.) the video was short. 2.) many of the scenes have characters just standing there or sitting around. And 3.) the Gek character only ran in a strait line in the beggining and only once walked and made a left turn. The rest if his scenes he was just standing around along with other characters. If you drew a conclusion just with that very little footage, then I guess all the creatures in game are playable characters too?
I also studied Forensic sciences so I know how to observe and never draw conclutions until all the facts are confirmed frlm the source.
See…this is what I’m talking about: 1) cherry picking, looking at the one instance where something that fits your argument could technically be happening even as there’s no hint or clue of said thing happening. 2) not counting inconvenient evidence…the character running off on its own in a direction no character is in but clearly towards a ship, then flying with said ship in a separate direction from the one that went before, group photo, obvious player gear worn by said character…etc.
Those arguments I have a problem with…because they hold no water…they’re base on wishful thinking and straw grasping at the absolute best.
Straw grasping would be stating that they arent A.I. based on around 5-10 seconds of minimal movement of the character in a staged trailer. That also holds no water or weight.
I’m not saying it’s definite, I am speculating both the possibility of it being an NPC or a playable character, having fun with that, what I’m sorta apposing now is how you just completely shoot it down as being 100% disproven anytime someone has fun with any sort of speculation, when it seems the video was made in such a way to alow us to speculate on such things.
I understand such a vigilant stance if someone were to say, start believing their own speculation or ideas and turn them into expectations, gotta control that sorta thing before it gets uncontrollable, we’ve seen how that can end, so I get where you’re coming from on that end, but this close to a release I don’t think anyone’s gonna get led astray by their own hype and imagination and be sad if there is no NPCs or if gek are not playable characters or whatever way it turns out. I can see the evidence for both arguments and I can’t wait to see which way it falls.
BTW I was sincere when asking about the bit where a gek gets in ship and flies, it’s 7am and my eyes still have not adjusted, could use a helpful nudge in the right direction
Again…cherry picking…I’ve provided several pieces of pretty blatant and conclusive proof. Now you try to deny it by claiming that oh the clip isn’t very long. Length isn’t as important as substance…I provide a well constructed argument with substance…you provide excuses and technicalities that have no proof to back them at all.
There is no solid proof for either. That’s the only fact there is.
Edit: I want to add that your evidence against it being an A.I. is not enough proof to confirm this also. Its not conclusivel if you haven’t played the game yourself or spoken to the game developers about it. If you took this to court, a judge would say that neither one of us have enough evidence to prove anuthing so the case is inconclusive.
Again trying to throw concrete evidence in the mud…your argument is as solid as trying to sell a blind man glasses on the premise they will miraculously make him see again, and the backbone of your argument is the equivalent of “well but you haven’t tried THESE glasses, so how can you say they aren’t miracle glasses”. A clear nonsense argument that relies on either frustrating someone enough to buy them just so you will leave them alone or for them to be sufficiently stupid to be persuaded by that argument.
The illustration you used doesnt apply to this situation. I mean, who is the blind man? How does sharing my speculation compare to a man trying to tell a blind man(or anyone) that the glasses will make him see as a fact?
Look, if a woman shoots a man in public bar, then she obviously shot the man and theres proof because people saw it themselves.
But if the lights went out and a gunshot was heard and no one saw who shot the man, how can you say it was the woman when there is no smoking gun in her hand?
Likewise, the video doesnt show enough to draw a fact.
You have nothing…you have fantasies about what you dream judges would say in court when you’re no lawyer and you have fantasies about what would be “easy” for developers to do as if you were involved in the game’s development and so on. You don’t have a single shred of concrete evidence. So yes…it perfectly applies. What you are doing is the very definition of straw grasping…dreaming about what could technically happen with zero proof.
And I didn’t point to anything that can’t easily be verified by everyone…the foundation for everything I say is right there linked in the opening post.
I’m sorry you don’t understand. Or perhaps i’m not doing a good job at explaining, I apologize for that too. I did say that I don’t have evidence many times. Either way, I just dont want you to shoot down other people’s speculations on these forums. We come here for fun, not for someone shoot down our comments agressively and write long paragraphs how the other is wrong and how much of a fool they are for not believing what you believe is fact based on speculations.
I’m not interested in explanations…I’ve pointed to pretty clear evidence…character gear, character behavior, group photo…etc. You’re trying to construct an argument in which all of that could be discarded and irrelevant to make room for a fantasy without any concrete evidence to support it at all.
Yea, true… you made the best point so far. I kinda stopped having fun for longer than I should have. i should have never had said anything.
@DarthTrethon your right. I have no evidence and there likely wont be any A.I. in the game. I was foolish to think that and I wasted both of our time trying to attempt to prove that there would be. I’m sorry. I mean it.
It’s fine I don’t hold grudges at all. I just get incredibly frustrated with logic that doesn’t fit or feels forced. There are more updates to come though so who knows…they might expand on the call reinforcements bit and allow for some sort of AI partner.
