Raiden Vs Vergil

Could go either way

@kingcrimson:

I know you don't necessarily believe that cutscenes are higher canon than gameplay, but if I was to give you the example of say, Raiden cutting through a wall, right? We know from that scene at the beginning of Revengence, that Raiden can cut through stone quite easily. If Raiden was to then run up to a wall of a random building in game and fail to cut it, that doesn't mean he can't cut walls, because we've seen it happen in a cutscene.

Cutscenes aren't priority, they are just the least affected by gameplay mechanics. Raiden not cutting walls in the gameplay segment is due to the fact that Devs don't intend for you to destroy the background and this isn't showing feats to any degree at all. Its pretty obvious these are the gameplay rules they wanted to set in. With regards to Raiden seeing explosions in slow mo, the Devs made it clear they wanted to make him this fast, they want everything moving slower relative to him to portray his speed.

It doesn't make sense that cutscenes should contradict gameplay. All action is intended to be shown in gameplay because these are video game characters.

To flip that on it's head, If Raiden cut through a car in game, and then failed to do so in a cutscene (I know he can, just bear with me), would you honestly take the gameplay over the cutscene as proof of his feats?

Its a case of contradiction for either instances in the same manner one moment a character dies to a nuke but destroys a planet the next day. These are feats you are comparing, clear cut feats. This isn't really a good example. You have to take into perspective what the Devs want for the characters. You are not here to watch a cinematic. You are supposed to play the character using his own capabilities as you play.

I know that's a bit of a drastic example, but you catch my drift. Cutscenes, as far as feats go, are kind of infallible. Gameplay less so.

Gameplay feats vs Cutscene feats aren't gauged. It doesn't make sense. Gameplay feats are only dismissed when you don't get something as clear cut as health bars, no clipping, glitches, in game bonuses, etc.

Agree, or not?

Disagree. m8.

@red_ruby_petal: Isn’t that just the thing though? Cutscenes and trailers tend to show what characters are capable of and their true capabilities. The devs are free to show them there as they imagine them in their heads, unrestricted by mechanics or the algorithms that govern gameplay. I see gameplay as something that above all is supposed to be fun to play and not a 100% accurate portrayal of the character in the same way a cutscene is, because player experience is the most important thing in gameplay.

This especially applies to things like your explosions destroying the helicopters and you claiming it was the devs intention to show a high yield — I whole heartedly disagree with that. It would be annoying and unfair if you were trying to fight Monsoon and you kept running into random bits of helicopter on the battlefield. It’s the exact same reason the undestroyed bits of debris randomly fly off to the side in either direction never to be seen again; the idea is to clear the screen so you can keep chopping away at new projectiles, not to showcase that Raiden has physics defying strength. I agree that Developer intention is important, but I think you’re taking it too far. The developer intention here seems to be - to me at least - “Let’s show that Raiden is really fast” and not “Players will time his swing speed against the explosion and get that he’s lightning speed, even though we’ve never so much as hinted at that before in any canon form”.

@kingcrimson:

Isn’t that just the thing though? Cutscenes and trailers tend to show what characters are capable of and their true capabilities. The devs are free to show them there as they imagine them in their heads, unrestricted by mechanics or the algorithms that govern gameplay. I see gameplay as something that above all is supposed to be fun to play and not a 100% accurate portrayal of the character in the same way a cutscene is, because player experience is the most important thing in gameplay.

Cutscenes and trailers don't always stay true like what you are saying. In a game like Rising, the cutscenes are where the whole thing is completely toned down because they don't intend to show the intense scenes through cutscenes. Think about it, when have we ever gotten an intense fight scene in a Rising cutscene? None, and the best we have ever gotten was some manly memey fight scene between Armstrong and Raiden and to some degree against Sam. How they utilized cut-scenes in Rising is only to prepare us for the real thing. It only serves as an introduction but we don't see everything. We didn't see Raiden throw Metal Gears in cutscenes, we didn't see Sundowner lift a pole in a cutscene, we never saw Mistral cause small tremors and extend her pole in cut scenes, we hell don't often see the FTE combat they are capable of in cut scenes. They made it clear that the real thing comes from the game and it was done purposely.

The Devs want us to experience intense action through playing as Raiden and we know the real deal comes with being able to use zandatsu because the whole game revolves around it where everything like raindrops and enemy movements slow down to a crawl.

This especially applies to things like your explosions destroying the helicopters and you claiming it was the devs intention to show a high yield — I whole heartedly disagree with that.

Then why put any effort into making an explosion expand at a small rate. This is a detail they made clear they wanted for Raiden to perceive at a slow rate along with everything else. It remains bright yellow and expands at bright yellow before slowly forming a red-ish color and smoke. The intention is clear. They wanted to able to perceive explosion actually forming.

It would be annoying and unfair if you were trying to fight Monsoon and you kept running into random bits of helicopter on the battlefield.

It’s the exact same reason the undestroyed bits of debris randomly fly off to the side in either direction never to be seen again; the idea is to clear the screen so you can keep chopping away at new projectiles, not to showcase that Raiden has physics defying strength.

This isn't what I am arguing for. Its clear thats part of game mechanics and that doesn't fall into the same vain as something with perfectly clear context.

I agree that Developer intention is important, but I think you’re taking it too far. The developer intention here seems to be - to me at least - “Let’s show that Raiden is really fast” and not “Players will time his swing speed against the explosion and get that he’s lightning speed, even though we’ve never so much as hinted at that before in any canon form”.

Then why make explosions move slow in the first place if they don't want to make him faster than explosions. They want him to be fast and they did so by making explosions look slow in his perception. Lightning speed is up to calcs although there were many implications that they were lightning speed but never put in as a solid feat. I am only arguing for the legitimacy of his explosion feat that definitely makes him massively hypersonic.

@zoble:

That's why i was blaming the other guy. He doesn't give any argument. He only gives headcanon.

But of course your fanboyism is blinding you You only see what you want to see. You could have said "You are both playing the same game" but no. You decided to attack me instead of the both of us. Don't try to act neutral

I have absolutely no reason to point out anything against the viner you were so called "debating" if I can even call that debating than it is dealing with your ranting. If there is anything I wanted to point out, its how much of a waste of time it is to even bother arguing with a literal comic book brickhead.

@kingcrimson: It doesn't seem unreasonable that Raiden can actually perceive detonation at a slow pace. Thats pretty much what the character revolves around so it just so happens to be a good feat for him.

Vergil in a near stomp.

@red_ruby_petal:

Cutscenes and trailers don't always stay true like what you are saying. In a game like Rising, the cutscenes are where the whole thing is completely toned down because they don't intend to show the intense scenes through cutscenes. Think about it, when have we ever gotten an intense fight scene in a Rising cutscene? None, and the best we have ever gotten was some manly memey fight scene between Armstrong and Raiden and to some degree against Sam. How they utilized cut-scenes in Rising is only to prepare us for the real thing.

Rising does opt to let the player experience most of the action through gameplay rather than cutscenes, but that doesn't really negate what I was saying. Just because it doesn't have many cutscenes doesn't devalue the accuracy of the cinematics in any way.

It only serves as an introduction but we don't see everything. We didn't see Raiden throw Metal Gears in cutscenes, we didn't see Sundowner lift a pole in a cutscene, we never saw Mistral cause small tremors and extend her pole in cut scenes, we hell don't often see the FTE combat they are capable of in cut scenes. They made it clear that the real thing comes from the game and it was done purposely.

Did they display FTE feats in game? The only FTE feat I remember from the later MGS games is the one you showed me from MGS4, which was in a cutscene.

The Devs want us to experience intense action through playing as Raiden and we know the real deal comes with being able to use zandatsu because the whole game revolves around it where everything like raindrops and enemy movements slow down to a crawl.

I agree the devs do want us to experience intense action, but not fully sold that they wanted us to time Raiden's strikes against the speed of explosions during gameplay.

Then why put any effort into making an explosion expand at a small rate. This is a detail they made clear they wanted for Raiden to perceive at a slow rate along with everything else. It remains bright yellow and expands at bright yellow before slowly forming a red-ish color and smoke. The intention is clear. They wanted to able to perceive explosion actually forming.

Sure, I find it hard to argue with this. There is no doubt that the devs made the explosions go in slow motion in blade mode on purpose - it doesn't change the fact that the speeds of the environmental factors across the board don't really correlate with each other. I think they slow everything down in Zandatsu, not really giving too much thought to their speed relative to each other. The explosions go slow, the raindrops slow, the helicopter blades go slow - but they aren't accurate when looking at the other factors IMO. The helicopter blades and the explosions next to each other are a clear example that too much thought wasn't put into it.

This isn't what I am arguing for. Its clear thats part of game mechanics and that doesn't fall into the same vain as something with perfectly clear context.

But which clear context are you talking about? The explosion speed relative to Raiden or the power of the explosions?

Then why make explosions move slow in the first place if they don't want to make him faster than explosions. They want him to be fast and they did so by making explosions look slow in his perception. Lightning speed is up to calcs although there were many implications that they were lightning speed but never put in as a solid feat. I am only arguing for the legitimacy of his explosion feat that definitely makes him massively hypersonic.

Honestly, Zandatsu is a gameplay support as much as it is a legitimate feat. It would be tough to slice opponents vital areas using MGR's mechanics if you only had 1 second to do it. You have to line up a hitbox and slice through it - doesn't make sense for that to happen in real time. Obviously its supposed to show enhanced speed too, but not to be dissected to the level you are talking about IMO.

Which feats implied them to be lightning speed? They've always seemed high supersonic/hypersonic to me.

@kingcrimson:

Rising does opt to let the player experience most of the action through gameplay rather than cutscenes, but that doesn't really negate what I was saying. Just because it doesn't have many cutscenes doesn't devalue the accuracy of the cinematics in any way.

Because it opts to let the player experience most of the action through gameplay that the most defined feats are going to be portrayed in there. Thats the point so your stand in using cutscenes to contradict gameplay, when that isn't supposed to make any damn sense given how they used it that action is intended for gameplay. The gameplay segment is more accurate in portraying their levels than the cutscenes looking at the Devs perspective.

Did they display FTE feats in game? The only FTE feat I remember from the later MGS games is the one you showed me from MGS4, which was in a cutscene.

Sam, Sundowner, Mistral and Monsoon all move at blurr speeds when dodging or sometimes appearing in reappearing only in the gameplay segments showing they are fast. Raiden even does so as part of his movesets when dashing moving at instantaneous speed. Even if you don't think its FTE its clear during gameplay they operate at different levels. For one we never saw Sundowner do strikes like at this speed in any cutscene whatsoever or even move at blurrss which is very reoccuring for the game.

I agree the devs do want us to experience intense action, but not fully sold that they wanted us to time Raiden's strikes against the speed of explosions during gameplay.

That is like saying the devs wanted CW Flash to be just mach 7, when he clearly performed feats much much faster. This is being way too over specific of what feat you want to dismiss.

Sure, I find it hard to argue with this. There is no doubt that the devs made the explosions go in slow motion in blade mode on purpose - it doesn't change the fact that the speeds of the environmental factors across the board don't really correlate with each other. I think they slow everything down in Zandatsu, not really giving too much thought to their speed relative to each other. The explosions go slow, the raindrops slow, the helicopter blades go slow - but they aren't accurate when looking at the other factors IMO. The helicopter blades and the explosions next to each other are a clear example that too much thought wasn't put into it.

This is like asking for every fictional character to have accurate speeds from various sources. This is asking waayy too much but the fact remains that they want him to be faster than explosions.

But which clear context are you talking about? The explosion speed relative to Raiden or the power of the explosions?

The former which I was arguing for.

Honestly, Zandatsu is a gameplay support as much as it is a legitimate feat. It would be tough to slice opponents vital areas using MGR's mechanics if you only had 1 second to do it. You have to line up a hitbox and slice through it - doesn't make sense for that to happen in real time. Obviously its supposed to show enhanced speed too, but not to be dissected to the level you are talking about IMO.

Are like disregarding the 50+ QTE instances that require Zandatsu thus contributing to feats and you call that just gameplay support? If it is meant to show speed and its meant to show Raiden is operating at high levels of speed then its meant to convey the level of speed he is operating in and that is where the whole game is based around and they are feats.

Its not even high effort dissecting to tell he is literally making explosions move slow.

What kind of pixel scaling is involved or high level dissecting is needed to see what the hell is this supposed to mean? How do you still think this way? Its contradictory if you admit that it shows enhanced speed, yet ignore that certain element because you don't want Raiden to be massively hypersonic even if it is the feat. That means you are only dismissing the feat based on arbitrary reasoning.

Which feats implied them to be lightning speed? They've always seemed high supersonic/hypersonic to me.

I am talking about whenever they call Raiden or Sam lightning fast. Those are just the implications so I don't use them as solid feats but it only makes sense that was intended for the characters.

And no they have always been high hypersonic.

@kingcrimson:

Sure, I find it hard to argue with this. There is no doubt that the devs made the explosions go in slow motion in blade mode on purpose - it doesn't change the fact that the speeds of the environmental factors across the board don't really correlate with each other. I think they slow everything down in Zandatsu, not really giving too much thought to their speed relative to each other. The explosions go slow, the raindrops slow, the helicopter blades go slow - but they aren't accurate when looking at the other factors IMO. The helicopter blades and the explosions next to each other are a clear example that too much thought wasn't put into it.

While I can agree that they probably didn't think too much about how all the animation speeds relative to each other, I think the message that Raiden is supposed to be faster than the explosions is pretty clear...

@red_ruby_petal: I’ll come back to you once I get to a computer ‘cause I can’t quote on mobile and you know... wall of text and what have you.

@mylittlefascist: The helicopter blades move faster than the explosions in Blade Mode - why scale from one and not the other?

I think it’s a cool effect to show things being frozen and meant to imply speed, but it’s not consistent enough to be used for scaling IMO.

@kingcrimson:

The helicopter blades move faster than the explosions in Blade Mode - why scale from one and not the other?

I am not. He's clearly meant to be faster than all of these things, and that's the important part.

I think it’s a cool effect to show things being frozen and meant to imply speed, but it’s not consistent enough to be used for scaling IMO.

Yea, it's meant to imply speed... by showing that he's faster than all of the things that are frozen. The game animators aren't going to sit there and make sure ever single speed shown is perfectly accurate relative to each other, they are just going to take all the things that he's meant to be faster than and freeze those as part of the ability effect.

You're making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

@mylittlefascist: So where would you place Raiden, speed wise?

@mylittlefascist: In response to your edit:

Ruby often uses the speed of two different explosions next to each other to claim that one is a Mach 5 gas explosion, and the other is a Mach 25-30 explosion. So are you telling me the devs have the foresite and time to think about detention velocities relative to each other, and animate that accurately on screen, but not the helicopter blades?

Well when you’re using gameplay to calc speed, I don’t see how you can just consider what suits you. I only consider cutscenes and QTEs, I don’t see how that’s complicated.

@kingcrimson:

Ruby often uses the speed of two different explosions next to each other to claim that one is a Mach 5 gas explosion, and the other is a Mach 25-30 explosion. So are you telling me the devs have the foresite and time to think about detention velocities relative to each other, and animate that accurately on screen, but not the helicopter blades?

I said mach 25-30 because I was actually referring to the explosion that was moving faster than the rest of the other explosions and was massive in comparison. That was just my estimate. At the VERY LEAST explosions are mach 5, so that is where I got my estimate from.

@kingcrimson: Fast enough to see explosions in slow motion?

Ruby often uses the speed of two different explosions next to each other to claim that one is a Mach 5 gas explosion, and the other is a Mach 25-30 explosion. So are you telling me the devs have the foresite and time to think about detention velocities relative to each other, and animate that accurately on screen, but not the helicopter blades?

I am not Ruby, I don't know what her arguments were, so I can't comment on them.

Well when you’re using gameplay to calc speed, I don’t see how you can just consider what suits you.

It's not about "calcing" the speed. It's a feat that happens to be in gameplay. Seeing explosions is a feat, whether it's done in a cutscene, a QTE, or as part of gameplay. You don't need to calc to say that the guy who sees explosions in slow motion while moving normally is faster than explosions.

I only consider cutscenes and QTEs, I don’t see how that’s complicated.

It's complicated because it eliminates perfectly usable feats and makes video game characters unnecessarily vague and hard to argue.

Also, are you sure you "only" consider cutscenes and QTE's? Because that eliminates the majority of Dante and Vergil's feats.

@mylittlefascist: Explosions vary wildly in speed. This whole argument between me and Ruby is essentially because I don’t buy Mach 300 Raiden, which comes from Ruby scaling one of the explosions to a Mach 30 explosion and then scaling his movement to it. I think that’s shaky ground for the reasons I explained above.

I’ve got no problem with developer intention in gameplay being used, and I agree blade mode is legitimate, but I’m not buying lightning speed Raiden based on gameplay scaling.

And yeah, pretty much exclusively cutscenes and QTEs. Abilities and data files too. Not actual gameplay.

@kingcrimson: The whole argument we had didny mostly revolve around mach 300 Raiden. I made that claim through calcs but its not my argument. My arguments I had with is proving he is at least mach 50 based on that alone or massively hypersonic. You just kept on dismissing it for the same reasons you are giving right now.

I am fine you disagree mach 300, its not something id defend. I just disagree that you dont consider his explosion timing legit.

@red_ruby_petal: We had a page long argument about Mach 300 Raiden in the Raiden vs Gilthunder thread?

@kingcrimson: if it were whether Raiden as mach 300 or not while accepting the explosion feat it would have been an argument of calcs that is quantitative. Our page long argument revolved around either dismissing or accepting his explosion feat. If it were arguing against mach 300 you would have argued against my calc.

@kingcrimson: but if you are settled with accepting the feat itself ( not the calc ), then we have concluded.

@kingcrimson: Also to make things clear about what I said with mach 30 explosions. I only ever said that for mach 300 Raiden because people dont like the idea of calcing from a massively slower source so I compared that explosion to the other explosion then scaled Raiden to the bigger one. That might have sounded complicated hence I didnt sound very convincing.

You realize that's like, all devil trigger feats and every weapon ability outside of the vanilla starting weapons, right?

This isn't even just about this particular thread. Following that logic, you're basically taking tons and tons of perfectly usable characters, and rendering them nigh featless.

The question here is... why? Why do this? Like... Seriously, what's the point? What does this accomplish other than making video game characters unnecessarily hard to use?

You have a character, whose feats are decently consistent and quantifiable enough to be used for battle forum threads. Why take that and literally tash all of their feats "becuz gameplay"? I literally do not understand why so many people on comicvine insist on doing this. It boggles my mind.

@mylittlefascist: Devil trigger has been shown multiple times in canon, as is every single weapon, and you’ve just quoted me saying that abilities are fine.

What are you talking about? You sound like I do this to purposefully make your life harder. My opinion on any character holds no weight with anybody but myself. I don’t use gameplay feats because I find them hard to quantify or reliably draw any conclusion from - you’re free to do as you please. I’ve never had trouble using game characters that way, so I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say I’m making characters nigh-featless.

@mylittlefascist: The biggest reason why people are so quick to dismiss gameplay feats is they can't fully understand what constitutes as a gameplay mechanic and what isn't. So we've gone through this norm of "lets trash away every gameplay based feat and only judge characters in cutscenes" and they abuse that so even if a character is so blatantly obvious as more impressive than the other character, the character they are defending still wins because it comes from a god damn video game.

LOL WUT! LINK!! I find it interesting how someone would defend mach 300 on Raiden based on that alone, considering how badly we deal with calcs.

@kingcrimson:

Gameplay feats are not hard to quantify. Its a matter of whether its reasonably legit or not. There are too many characters in video games that portray abilities outside cutscenes and QTE. A character shoots a gun as part of their ability, creates shockwaves with their punches, shoots ball of electricity, as part of the gameplay the player needs to go through. Or for example the character you are playing as happened to create multiple after images as part of their moveset or swung their sword a 100x times like Vergil does and this happens in gameplay. Having dismissed their feats that happen in gameplay means saying the character or player didn't go through any of these things, elements that the devs wanted you to experience when you know thats just asinine to believe.

@chaos_zelur:

Gameplay feats are not hard to quantify. Its a matter of whether its reasonably legit or not. There are too many characters in video games that portray abilities outside cutscenes and QTE. A character shoots a gun as part of their ability, creates shockwaves with their punches, shoots ball of electricity, as part of the gameplay the player needs to go through.

Again, I've no problems with abilities being used. If you've actually read this thread, you will of seen me say multiple times that I find characters given abilities in game OK to use.

Or for example the character you are playing as happened to create multiple after images as part of their moveset or swung their sword a 100x times like Vergil does and this happens in gameplay. Having dismissed their feats that happen in gameplay means saying the character or player didn't go through any of these things, elements that the devs wanted you to experience when you know thats just asinine to believe.

Those feats from Vergil are backed up in multiple sources - cutscenes, manga panels, whatever.

@red_ruby_petal: @kingcrimson: Nvm I found it just by typing Raiden vs Gilthunder. It looked like you understood what he meant, and then decided to trash it because raindrops were moving faster than the explosions.

I was actually more curious as to why they were moving upwards.

@kingcrimson:

Again, I've no problems with abilities being used. If you've actually read this thread, you will of seen me say multiple times that I find characters given abilities in game OK to use.

Then why terminate the blade mode feat then? I've been reading this debate and earlier you just said you don't use gameplay feats.

Those feats from Vergil are backed up in multiple sources - cutscenes, manga panels, whatever.

So are you trying to say that every gameplay feat needs a cutscene and another source to back it up? I guess debating Dark Souls and Bloodborne is impossible and lets pretend everything they showed in gameplay didn't happen so The Chosen Undead is featless.

This is a completely unnecessary requirement. A game doesn't need to have a cut scene to show you an ability for a character to be considered an ability for the character and too many games don't have cutscenes to back up their feats. I mean IT IS a video game so obviously people want to show what they can do in video games. It falls under the exact same manner when people draw a comic book panel to show someone can destroy the ground to send a massive debris of rocks and the same thing happens for another character in a video game. You are being insanely captious about it and doesn't sound very smart.

You've probably been told this plenty of times already by @red_ruby_petal and @mylittlefascist and so it doesn't seem like anymore can be said.

I've never had a problem with Ruby's logic - it's perfectly sound - so of course I get what she's saying, I just don't agree.

Then why terminate the blade mode feat then? I've been reading this debate and earlier you just said you don't use gameplay feats.

Blade mode is the ability. I don't deny it exists because it hasn't been shown in gameplay, but I don't use it to calc speed because the factors are inconsistent - don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

So are you trying to say that every gameplay feat needs a cutscene and another source to back it up? I guess debating Dark Souls and Bloodborne is impossible and lets pretend everything they showed in gameplay didn't happen so The Chosen Undead is featless.

They have lore feats to pull from, and again, no problem with abilities. If you want to start telling me that The Hunter is a lightning timer because you can dodge lightning bolts from the mages in the Fishing Hamlet, that's where I have a problem.

This is a completely unnecessary requirement. A game doesn't need to have a cut scene to show you an ability for a character to be considered an ability for the character and too many games don't have cutscenes to back up their feats. I mean IT IS a video game so obviously people want to show what they can do in video games. It falls under the exact same manner when people draw a comic book panel to show someone can destroy the ground to send a massive debris of rocks and the same thing happens for another character in a video game. You are being insanely captious about it and doesn't sound very smart.

I'm not being funny mate, but what I find credible has nothing to do with you. I find using gameplay largely unreliable, for reasons I stated above, so I don't consider it. If you want to use it, great, but I don't agree.

@kingcrimson:

Blade mode is the ability. I don't deny it exists because it hasn't been shown in gameplay, but I don't use it to calc speed because the factors are inconsistent - don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

That wasn't your stand earlier. So you agree he is swinging his blade multiple times before an explosion expands then. Well then.

They have lore feats to pull from, and again, no problem with abilities. If you want to start telling me that The Hunter is a lightning timer because you can dodge lightning bolts from the mages in the Fishing Hamlet, that's where I have a problem.

I guess they have lore, but what if they didn't. Would you still dismiss the feat? I am pretty sure its dodging the trajectories than it is legitimately dodging lightning or if you can call that natural lightning. Thats not a case of gameplay m8, thats a case of what you call an outlier feat or not.

I'm not being funny mate, but what I find credible has nothing to do with you. I find using gameplay largely unreliable, for reasons I stated above, so I don't consider it. If you want to use it, great, but I don't agree.

There is no need to get this defensive. We are just debating. I am taking you seriously but there is definitely things wrong with your opinion I want to point out so it didn't sound smart when you think of it thoroughly.

copy that

@chaos_zelur:

That wasn't your stand earlier.

It was and it always has been. I have never denied the existence of Blade Mode.

So you agree he is swinging his blade multiple times before an explosion expands then. Well then.

No? You're gauging speed from gameplay, which is what I don't agree with. Blade Mode exists, but I don't think it can be reliably quantified just how much faster it makes him. The same goes for Vergil and DT.

I guess they have lore, but what if they didn't. Would you still dismiss the feat?

If you give me an example of a game without lore, cutscenes or trailers and played entirely through gameplay that you think can be quantified I'll tell you.

I am pretty sure its dodging the trajectories than it is legitimately dodging lightning or if you can call that natural lightning. Thats not a case of gameplay m8, thats a case of what you call an outlier feat or not.

I've seen some guy on Reddit or VSBattles who was absolutely desperate for the Hunter to be hypersonic take frame by frame screenshots of himself dodging the lightning after it fired. It can be done in game. Why is that not an example of gameplay?

You could say the same things for them dodging bullets from other Hunters. I used to buy that myself, until I tried to shoot a villager and his dog and they walked out of the way of the bullets.

There is no need to get this defensive. We are just debating. I am taking you seriously but there is definitely things wrong with your opinion I want to point out so it didn't sound smart when you think of it thoroughly.

There are things wrong with my opinion in your opinion.

You point out to me what you think those things are and I'll happily address them.

I'm going to go with Vergil.

@kingcrimson:

It was and it always has been. I have never denied the existence of Blade Mode.

No? You're gauging speed from gameplay, which is what I don't agree with. Blade Mode exists, but I don't think it can be reliably quantified just how much faster it makes him. The same goes for Vergil and DT.

Blade only ever existed in gameplay now you say you can't gauge his speed seeing explosions in slow motion. The message is crystal clear on that and we can quantify it. What makes it hard to quantify is you guaging it against various sources. This is fiction, you will never get consistent mach 2 bullet speed or mach 3 jets or anything like that but what makes a feat a feat is what they want to show you. Its not unquantifiable, you are just making it unnecessarily hard to quantify.

If you give me an example of a game without lore, cutscenes or trailers and played entirely through gameplay that you think can be quantified I'll tell you.

This isn't important ( there aren't too many games that don't have lore and can be used for comicvine battles ). I was asking if they didn't have lore, would you still dismiss the idea of the character being able take down monsters and carry a giant hammer while he is at it, something that requires insane strength. Lore isn't important in delivering that message, the game Devs already made it clear he is superhuman. I didn't have read into Dark Souls lore to tell that was what was intended for the character. If they display he has superhuman strength in gameplay, whether it would be a cutscene, manual, lore and the such it is all unnecessary.

I've seen some guy on Reddit or VSBattles who was absolutely desperate for the Hunter to be hypersonic take frame by frame screenshots of himself dodging the lightning after it fired. It can be done in game. Why is that not an example of gameplay?

You could say the same things for them dodging bullets from other Hunters. I used to buy that myself, until I tried to shoot a villager and his dog and they walkedout of the way of the bullets.

Because that isn't the intended message the Devs have. Thats gauging feats from no clipping and gameplay rules. When the message of the feat is unclear and you know that wasn't intended for the character then you don't count them as feats. This isn't the same case for Raiden.

There are things wrong with my opinion in your opinion.

You point out to me what you think those things are and I'll happily address them.

I already stated that in the paragraph of my earlier posts before you started flippin.

Raiden still stomps

Don't see how raiden wins. Both have comparable speeds but Vergil has rapid teleports, insane regen, devil trigger and a sword that would cut through raiden no problem. Same to vergil but again regen.

R2 DMC team stomps.

Demons >>>>>>> Cyborgs

The only good point for Raiden is In-Character condition.

@chaos_zelur: Get back to you when I get to a desktop man.

@chaos_zelur:

Blade only ever existed in gameplay now you say you can't gauge his speed seeing explosions in slow motion. The message is crystal clear on that and we can quantify it. What makes it hard to quantify is you guaging it against various sources. This is fiction, you will never get consistent mach 2 bullet speed or mach 3 jets or anything like that but what makes a feat a feat is what they want to show you. Its not unquantifiable, you are just making it unnecessarily hard to quantify.

If you're saying you can never reliably quantify bullet speed or jet speed in fiction, why are these explosions so reliable? I'm OK with using developer intention, but how can that be reliably used to quantify speed if you just cherry pick the feats you want from gameplay?

This isn't important ( there aren't too many games that don't have lore and can be used for comicvine battles ). I was asking if they didn't have lore, would you still dismiss the idea of the character being able take down monsters and carry a giant hammer while he is at it, something that requires insane strength.

I feel like we're getting a bit off-topic here, but the point I'm making is you can't reliably quantify the feats given in gameplay. In your example of taking down monsters, the only absolute certainty is that the Player character defeats the monster - you can't really afford him super strength based on that alone.

Lore isn't important in delivering that message, the game Devs already made it clear he is superhuman. I didn't have read into Dark Souls lore to tell that was what was intended for the character. If they display he has superhuman strength in gameplay, whether it would be a cutscene, manual, lore and the such it is all unnecessary.

How did they make it clear, in your opinion? I think to say he's superhuman is a safe assertion, but you can't really plug numbers in and say "he's as strong as Captain America/Superman" because he beat this monster. I don't agree that's reliable.

Because that isn't the intended message the Devs have. Thats gauging feats from no clipping and gameplay rules.

What's "no clipping" out of interest? Never heard that before.

In any case, I don't see the distinction. How can you say it's dev intention for Raiden to be faster than explosions, but not the Hunter to be faster than bullets/lightning, given that they both happen in game with no other sources to confirm either way?

I already stated that in the paragraph of my earlier posts before you started flippin

My bad if I came off like an arsehole man.

Vergil murks. No one is high hypersonic cuz of in game visual effects which results in faulty and false scaling.

Don't @me

Wow, now we calling Raiden Mach 300

OT: Vergil. Better abilities imo.

Vergil wins.

@kingcrimson:

If you're saying you can never reliably quantify bullet speed or jet speed in fiction, why are these explosions so reliable? I'm OK with using developer intention, but how can that be reliably used to quantify speed if you just cherry pick the feats you want from gameplay?

What I am saying is that visually no one is going to consistently make their character mach 5 and have him travel point A to B at that amount of time. The only indicators especially dealing with fictional characters is gauging through quantifiable sources or what the character had to do to achieve the effect.

In what way would you call what @red_ruby_petal displayed to you as cherry picking that differs from other feats characters in comics or movies have? Be it their best feats?

I feel like we're getting a bit off-topic here, but the point I'm making is you can't reliably quantify the feats given in gameplay. In your example of taking down monsters, the only absolute certainty is that the Player character defeats the monster - you can't really afford him super strength based on that alone.

This isn't off topic. This is an important question you didn't really answer. If I am getting this right, you think that lore and cutscenes are required for characters to have feats. Chosen Undead holds a giant weapon in gameplay. Would you still say he can't do so if he didn't have lore, background or cut scenes? I'd prefer this to be addressed.

If the player has to defeat a giant monster with weapons, then that indicates that the character they are playing as has enough strength to hurt the monster let alone kill it as that is intended for the character. The other example I gave earlier was the character holding a giant weapon and there is nothing that isn't explicit about that. Would you still say its not reliable to say that the character has super strength because that was all shown in gameplay?

How did they make it clear, in your opinion? I think to say he's superhuman is a safe assertion, but you can't really plug numbers in and say "he's as strong as Captain America/Superman" because he beat this monster. I don't agree that's reliable.

What is the point of bringing this up? If he is as strong as Captain America is up to feats but what we do know that he is capable of inflicting enough harm to giant monsters and kill them and all I said is that it is clear he is superhuman because no normal or peak human could even stand up to foes like that.

To get exact measurements depends on how good you think being able to harm and kill giant monsters with a hammer or sword is. This "reliability" you are talking about, are you saying its not reliable to think he could harm or kill giant monsters because it happens in gameplay?

What's "no clipping" out of interest? Never heard that before.

When your character goes through walls or textures.

In any case, I don't see the distinction. How can you say it's dev intention for Raiden to be faster than explosions,

but not the Hunter to be faster than bullets/lightning, given that they both happen in game with no other sources to confirm either way?

Because of the feat posted right in front of you? Because they actually are moving in slow motion? How is that unclear? Why would they ever make the explosions move slow in Raiden's perception only for you to say "that is not what the developers want for Raiden". Like give a second that of what you are saying because that doesn't sound right.

For the case of the hunter, it depends on the context because dodging can be either

A - Aim dodging

B - Dodging a line of fire

C - Actually reacting

If they want to make it clear, then they will do so, but the Hunter doesn't have an innate mechanic that qualifies as real bullet timing. If he did actually have an ability to bullet time, then it would have been shown by i.e him/her having the ability to deflect bullets, the ability to perceive bullets or to have a spider sense ability like the ps4 Spiderman game.

My bad if I came off like an arsehole man.

No probs.

Vergil murks. No one is high hypersonic cuz of in game visual effects which results in faulty and false scaling.

Don't @me

Not gonna @you, but m8, I think this is basically trying to say that.....

Let's dismiss this one feat this character has, call it "faulty and false scaling" because why the hell not, so that your blatantly less impressive character still wins.

@ourmanuel: Maybe mach 300 Raiden doesn't sound too good just based on making something that moves at mach 5 move at caterpillar speed, but that is still better than what Vergil has to offer in raw attack speed ( unless im missing something ).

The best of Vergil's abilities and in character fighting style seems to mostly be melee and not something so useful against someone with speed, unless he has something against speed.

@chaos_zelur:

What I am saying is that visually no one is going to consistently make their character mach 5 and have him travel point A to B at that amount of time.

I never said they did.

The only indicators especially dealing with fictional characters is gauging through quantifiable sources or what the character had to do to achieve the effect.

Yeah, I mostly agree with this.

In what way would you call what red_ruby_petal displayed to you as cherry picking that differs from other feats characters in comics or movies have? Be it their best feats?

She'll happily use the explosion feat from Blade Mode as reliable and consistent, but when pointed out against the helicopter rotor's speed using the same ability, it's "Well it can't always be right/consistent". You can't quantify one without the other and not call that cherry picking.

This isn't off topic. This is an important question you didn't really answer. If I am getting this right, you think that lore and cutscenes are required for characters to have feats. Chosen Undead holds a giant weapon in gameplay. Would you still say he can't do so if he didn't have lore, background or cut scenes? I'd prefer this to be addressed.

So you're saying if happened to be playing some game, with absolutely no lore, cutscenes, date files or any background or explanation whatsoever, and the player is just holding a big sword would I say "No he can't hold a big sword"? I don't know what your getting at, nor have I ever said that to be the case.

If the player has to defeat a giant monster with weapons, then that indicates that the character they are playing as has enough strength to hurt the monster let alone kill it as that is intended for the character.

Maybe the player has the speed and the skill to dodge around the monster and then wear it down with repeated strikes with his weapon? Maybe he ran away and blasted it with magic the entire fight? It might not have anything to do with strength, and you're making assumptions without any facts.

The other example I gave earlier was the character holding a giant weapon and there is nothing that isn't explicit about that. Would you still say its not reliable to say that the character has super strength because that was all shown in gameplay?

What I said was you can't reliably quantify his strength based on gameplay. He can hold a big sword, great. How strong does that make him? Are you going to guess the weight of the weapon, see how far he knocks a monster with it and then come up with a number? That's what I don't agree with.

What is the point of bringing this up? If he is as strong as Captain America is up to feats but what we do know that he is capable of inflicting enough harm to giant monsters and kill them and all I said is that it is clear he is superhuman because no normal or peak human could even stand up to foes like that.

Again, not what I'm saying. You can't quantify how strong he is based on that alone.

To relate what you're saying to this thread, it would be the equivalent of me denying Raiden was superhumanly fast if it was only shown in gameplay. I wouldn't do that.

I have a problem with trying to quantify how fast he is using gameplay, because there are other factors at play and it's too inconsistent.

To get exact measurements depends on how good you think being able to harm and kill giant monsters with a hammer or sword is. This "reliability" you are talking about, are you saying its not reliable to think he could harm or kill giant monsters because it happens in gameplay?

Did it take him 2 hours? Did he almost die whilst doing it? Did he one-shot it? How much damage did he do with every swing?

The feat is that he killed the monster. Good feat, no doubt, but you can't quantify it. I wouldn't be comfortable saying the Chosen Undead is a 2 tonner because he killed a bus-sized monster.

Because of the feat posted right in front of you? Because they actually are moving in slow motion? How is that unclear? Why would they ever make the explosions move slow in Raiden's perception only for you to say "that is not what the developers want for Raiden". Like give a second that of what you are saying because that doesn't sound right.

You're not even reading what I'm saying. So what if they do? Yeah, the explosions move in slow motion. Great. The pieces of debris move at comparable if not faster speeds? So how fast are you saying that makes him? Why do helicopter blades move just as fast as the explosions?

Blade mode makes everything move in slow motion. They clearly haven't given much thought to the speeds of the things moving in BM in gameplay, so I don't see how you can use those things to quantify his speed. Especially when in cutscenes, he's never shown to be that fast.

For the case of the hunter, it depends on the context because dodging can be either

A - Aim dodging

B - Dodging a line of fire

C - Actually reacting

If they want to make it clear, then they will do so, but the Hunter doesn't have an innate mechanic that qualifies as real bullet timing. If he did actually have an ability to bullet time, then it would have been shown by i.e him/her having the ability to deflect bullets, the ability to perceive bullets or to have a spider sense ability like the ps4 Spiderman game.

You can see the bullets coming towards you as the hunter and dodge out of the way using the dodge mechanic.

@kingcrimson:

She'll happily use the explosion feat from Blade Mode as reliable and consistent, but when pointed out against the helicopter rotor's speed using the same ability, it's "Well it can't always be right/consistent". You can't quantify one without the other and not call that cherry picking.

First of all you agreed with these 2 statements that I gave above. Then if you agree with that then trying to dismiss the explosion feat because of helicopter blades is null. Developers aren't going to go out of their way to give too much thought between the speed of different sources. In fact if you think about it, its more boring to look at helicopter blades freeze in place or make every other source freeze in place and have explosions move at this consistent rate.

The important part isn't comparing how fast explosions are compared to a helicopter's rotor speed, the important part is that he can clearly make all of these things move slow. If anything cherry picking applies to you more than it applies to Ruby, because what you are doing is trying to say "Raiden can't make explosions move slow" because "helicopter blades move at the same rate" is basically saying making helicopter blades move slow is more true to Raiden. How does that work? Why pick one feat over the other because you favor that more? Either of these instances can be true but they contradict each other for the very one reason: Developers don't care. All they want to do is make explosions move slow so they can give the message that Raiden can make explosions move slow, rather than being so nitpicky about it and compare it to every other source.

Your logic gets you nowhere. I think a great example would be Man Of Steel

So following your logic, because gravity only accelerates at like 9m/s or at maximum I think is 100-200 mph which is only achieved through skydiving, lets deny the fact that either Zod or Superman are completely capable of accelerating their fists faster than 343 m/s, or the speed of sound simply because gravity can be seen taking place while they move at normal human speed. Now lets take it into the perspective of the artists. Do you think they are ever going to go out of their way to make everything around them move slow so you can get accurate numbers? Being this overly nitpicky with feats will take away a lot of feats not just from video game characters but comic book or even movie characters too.

So you're saying if happened to be playing some game, with absolutely no lore, cutscenes, date files or any background or explanation whatsoever, and the player is just holding a big sword would I say "No he can't hold a big sword"? I don't know what your getting at, nor have I ever said that to be the case.

Your stance was that gameplay isn't reliable to get feats, this is something thats so clear cut you don't even need cut scenes and lore to tell he is holding a giant sword or a giant hammer. I am getting this because you have been saying this

And yeah, pretty much exclusively cutscenes and QTEs. Abilities and data files too. Not actual gameplay.

And if you reread our conversation I brought up Vergil being able to do many swings in gameplay you brought up the idea that you think its legitimate solely because he has cutscenes and manga panels to back it up as well as the Dark Souls characters having lore. You were bringing these things up as if they were counter arguments. So yes I had a reason to bring this up. I'd request you reread our entire conversation again.

Maybe the player has the speed and the skill to dodge around the monster and then wear it down with repeated strikes with his weapon? Maybe he ran away and blasted it with magic the entire fight? It might not have anything to do with strength, and you're making assumptions without any facts.

The player using being able to use magic doesn't have anything to do or is anything against the idea that he can hurt giant monsters with melee weapons as shown in the game. This isn't a counter argument of the same case.

What I said was you can't reliably quantify his strength based on gameplay. He can hold a big sword, great. How strong does that make him? Are you going to guess the weight of the weapon, see how far he knocks a monster with it and then come up with a number? That's what I don't agree with.

What kind of argument is this? This has nothing to do with gameplay. What you are saying here applies to every other medium besides video games.

If he is knocking a monster that is a feat, if he is holding a giant weapon, that is a feat. These are quantifiable. You need need mathematics to call something quantifiable. You just have to ask the question "Do you think the opposing character can do the same?" It depends how much you can get out of the feat that is clear cut.

Again, not what I'm saying. You can't quantify how strong he is based on that alone.

It is not a matter of whether you can or can't quantify it. Its how much you can get out of the context of being able to hurt giant monsters. If you say you can't quantify something, then you are trying to say this character doesn't get the feat.

To relate what you're saying to this thread, it would be the equivalent of me denying Raiden was superhumanly fast if it was only shown in gameplay. I wouldn't do that.

I have a problem with trying to quantify how fast he is using gameplay, because there are other factors at play and it's too inconsistent.

If this is the only problem you have, this is pretty much addressed as per earlier paragraphs.

Did it take him 2 hours? Did he almost die whilst doing it? Did he one-shot it? How much damage did he do with every swing?

You only ever ask these questions because these are answers never explicitly given to you. This doesn't fall under the same case of Raiden explicitly making explosions move slow.

The feat is that he killed the monster. Good feat, no doubt, but you can't quantify it. I wouldn't be comfortable saying the Chosen Undead is a 2 tonner because he killed a bus-sized monster.

Stop saying you can't quantify it. The only problem is that you can't be specific about it. Thats all.

You're not even reading what I'm saying. So what if they do? Yeah, the explosions move in slow motion. Great. The pieces of debris move at comparable if not faster speeds? So how fast are you saying that makes him? Why do helicopter blades move just as fast as the explosions?

Read what you are saying.

In any case, I don't see the distinction. How can you say it's dev intention for Raiden to be faster than explosions,

but not the Hunter to be faster than bullets/lightning, given that they both happen in game with no other sources to confirm either way?

So I had a reason to make the counter argument: "Because of the feat posted right in front of you? Because they actually are moving in slow motion? How is that unclear? Why would they ever make the explosions move slow in Raiden's perception only for you to say "that is not what the developers want for Raiden". Like give a second that of what you are saying because that doesn't sound right." So honestly, I am not the one who isn't reading here.

In the case of the helicopter blades I addressed above. In the case of the debris, if by chance you are referring to when Raiden cuts the vehicles then it moves out of the way, its a cause and effect so it makes sense that if he carried some semblance of momentum, then the vehicles would be carried away at that kind of speed.

But otherwise that is part of the mechanic to put things out of the way so you wouldn't have to deal with millions of parts surrounding the screen. The last vehicle in the Monsoon fight isn't affected by that factor. Thats a case of gameplay mechanics making things easier for the player but it doesn't contradict the idea of him being able to see explosions in slow mo.

Blade mode makes everything move in slow motion. They clearly haven't given much thought to the speeds of the things moving in BM in gameplay, so I don't see how you can use those things to quantify his speed.

So lets render every other fictional character featless, because its pretty clear even movie directors and comic book writers don't give as much thought as we do.

Especially when in cutscenes, he's never shown to be that fast.

In the cutscene at the beginning of the game or how they wanted to introduce the character, they had him casually doing 10 swings in what is only visibly 2. So it makes sense they wanted him to be some massively hypersonic god like being doing things that we can't even perceive.

First of all you agreed with these 2 statements that I gave above. Then if you agree with that then trying to dismiss the explosion feat because of helicopter blades is null. Developers aren't going to go out of their way to give too much thought between the speed of different sources. In fact if you think about it, its more boring to look at helicopter blades freeze in place or make every other source freeze in place and have explosions move at this consistent rate.

So what exactly are you trying to argue here? I already agreed with Ruby that I accept the feat of him seeing the explosion in slow motion, I just don't think it can be used to scale his speed.

The important part isn't comparing how fast explosions are compared to a helicopter's rotor speed, the important part is that he can clearly make all of these things move slow. If anything cherry picking applies to you more than it applies to Ruby, because what you are doing is trying to say "Raiden can't make explosions move slow" because "helicopter blades move at the same rate" is basically saying making helicopter blades move slow is more true to Raiden. How does that work? Why pick one feat over the other because you favor that more?

I don't, and you are literally making my point for me. I don't take either of them seriously, purely because if you consider one you HAVE to consider the other, otherwise you are cherry picking.

Either of these instances can be true but they contradict each other for the very one reason: Developers don't care. All they want to do is make explosions move slow so they can give the message that Raiden can make explosions move slow, rather than being so nitpicky about it and compare it to every other source.

Could it not be said, given the blatant discrepancy in speed of objects in blade mode, that the devs are far less likely invested in proving Raiden is fast enough to see explosions in slow motion and more invested in making cool effects?

So following your logic, because gravity only accelerates at like 9m/s or at maximum I think is 100-200 mph which is only achieved through skydiving, lets deny the fact that either Zod or Superman are completely capable of accelerating their fists faster than 343 m/s, or the speed of sound simply because gravity can be seen taking place while they move at normal human speed. Now lets take it into the perspective of the artists. Do you think they are ever going to go out of their way to make everything around them move slow so you can get accurate numbers?

To be fair, the directors in the DCEU have shown superspeed through slowing everything down before, but I do very much catch your drift here. Unfortunately, in real-time, this is a lot harder to catch out. You can't really follow their fists when they move, and their strength might go a large way to causing the shockwave too.

Your stance was that gameplay isn't reliable to get feats, this is something thats so clear cut you don't even need cut scenes and lore to tell he is holding a giant sword or a giant hammer. I am getting this because you have been saying this

Not to get feats, it's too unreliable to quantify as I keep saying. In regards to just holding a sword, I wouldn't even regard that as gameplay per say, it's just a moveset of the character. Where I would have a problem is if you tried to quantify him knocking back an enemy with that sword when that would be largely based on game mechanics.

And if you reread our conversation I brought up Vergil being able to do many swings in gameplay you brought up the idea that you think its legitimate solely because he has cutscenes and manga panels to back it up as well as the Dark Souls characters having lore. You were bringing these things up as if they were counter arguments. So yes I had a reason to bring this up. I'd request you reread our entire conversation again.

I think this is where we are crossing wires. I will first just clarify that I mentioned Vergil having those same feats in other mediums because that seemed like an appropriate reply to your statement that Vergil's feats would be nullified by my logic too.

If by Vergil's feats in gameplay you are referring to him being able to perform moves like Judgement cut or phantom blades or whatever, I wouldn't discount those. Those are valid character abilities that in my opinion, are OK to use.

I'd only have a problem if (for example) you were to say that because when judgement cut is used whilst fighting Dante, and you can bounce all over the screen whilst Dante only moves a foot or so, that Vergil is then X amount faster than Dante.

The player using being able to use magic doesn't have anything to do or is anything against the idea that he can hurt giant monsters with melee weapons as shown in the game. This isn't a counter argument of the same case.

OK, well then why is super strength a requirement to hurt somebody when you have a weapon? A 6 year old could kill a grown man if he had a weapon without the need for superhuman stats.

What kind of argument is this? This has nothing to do with gameplay. What you are saying here applies to every other medium besides video games.

If he is knocking a monster that is a feat, if he is holding a giant weapon, that is a feat. These are quantifiable. You need need mathematics to call something quantifiable. You just have to ask the question "Do you think the opposing character can do the same?" It depends how much you can get out of the feat that is clear cut.

How does it not have anything to do with gameplay if that is where the feats happen?

It is not a matter of whether you can or can't quantify it. Its how much you can get out of the context of being able to hurt giant monsters. If you say you can't quantify something, then you are trying to say this character doesn't get the feat.

OK, but even following your logic in another medium, I wouldn't find the feat overly usable. It would be the same as a fight happening off screen in a movie - we know X character beat Y character, but we don't know how it happened. He beat him, that's a feat, but you can't say he's super strong because he beat a super strong character, that's not how it works.

If this is the only problem you have, this is pretty much addressed as per earlier paragraphs.

OK, then we can drop this conversation?

You only ever ask these questions because these are answers never explicitly given to you. This doesn't fall under the same case of Raiden explicitly making explosions move slow.

I know it doesn't. I'm not the one who brought up Dark Souls as a like for like comparison.

We're having 2 completely separate arguments now because you don't agree with my opinion on gameplay.

Stop saying you can't quantify it. The only problem is that you can't be specific about it. Thats all.

*Sigh* Circles.

So I had a reason to make the counter argument: "Because of the feat posted right in front of you? Because they actually are moving in slow motion? How is that unclear? Why would they ever make the explosions move slow in Raiden's perception only for you to say "that is not what the developers want for Raiden". Like give a second that of what you are saying because that doesn't sound right." So honestly, I am not the one who isn't reading here.

That takes nothing away from the question I asked you. Both feats happen on screen. The explosions move in slow motion, and the Hunter dodges the bullet. "Why would they ever make the bullets dodgeable if..."

In the case of the helicopter blades I addressed above. In the case of the debris, if by chance you are referring to when Raiden cuts the vehicles then it moves out of the way, its a cause and effect so it makes sense that if he carried some semblance of momentum, then the vehicles would be carried away at that kind of speed.

Not at right angles to the original force. That's not how momentum works.

But otherwise that is part of the mechanic to put things out of the way so you wouldn't have to deal with millions of parts surrounding the screen. The last vehicle in the Monsoon fight isn't affected by that factor.

That's exactly what it is, I agree.

Thats a case of gameplay mechanics making things easier for the player but it doesn't contradict the idea of him being able to see explosions in slow mo.

No, but it contradicts the speed of the explosion.

So lets render every other fictional character featless, because its pretty clear even movie directors and comic book writers don't give as much thought as we do.

True, but that's addressed on a case by case basis. Kishimoto for example is horrendous when it comes to drawing things to scale (see both world trees), and I penalise him for it all the same. If he draws a mountain that's only as big as a skyscraper, despite that it's supposed to be a mountain, if you want to start scaling from it, you'd still have to consider how small he actually drew it.

In the cutscene at the beginning of the game or how they wanted to introduce the character, they had him casually doing 10 swings in what is only visibly 2. So it makes sense they wanted him to be some massively hypersonic god like being doing things that we can't even perceive.

That's basically an FTE feat. There is a whole world between that and swinging at Mach 300.

Look man, I'm tired of going over this same argument again and again. I've been over it with Ruby more times than I can count, and now with you.

What my opinion boils down to is that gameplay feats are too hard to quantify (or be specific about), so I personally tend not to consider them. If it will make you happy for me to say that Raiden viewed an explosion in slow motion, then cool, Raiden seen an explosion in slow motion.

I still don't think it can be quantified and if that's the case, I don't know why it's grounds to say Raiden wins here. I'm happy to discuss the battle from here on out, but I'm not doing another long quote for quote response. Just an FYI before you go and respond to each point.