Crom Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 The new chemical names are a joke. Literally. As much as i respect the new chem system, the naming system needs an improvement. You can keep jokes and little side giggles here and there, especially for the more obscurely used chems. However right now when discussing chemicals seriously it makes you feel like 5 year old's playing pretend when you actually read what your saying. I want to feel like a 30 year old man playing pretend! For the sake of whatever immersion we have left, please consider a rework for the names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox McCloud Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Considering the vast bulk of chems that are ever discussed are medical....and nearly every single one of the medical chemicals is real, I have no idea where this is even coming from Silver Sulfadiazine, Styptic Powder, Pentetic Acid, Charcoal, Perfluorodecalin, Salbutamol, saline-glucose, epinephrine, atropine, calomel, potassium-iodide, morphine, hydrocodone, diphenhydramine, insulin, simethicone, Aranesp, pancuronium, sodium thiopental, suflonal, formaldehyde, haloperidol, salicylic acid, and mannitol are....all real pharmaceuticals. So are the illicit drugs: Meth, Krokodil, Crank, LSD, Bath Salts, and Nicotine. While there's some fictionally named medicinal drugs: Rezadone, Cryox, Oucline, Audioline, sterilizine, teporone, strange reagent, omnizine, synthflesh, and I'm sure a few others. Nearly all the component reagent names are also realistically named---with the exception of a few joke chemicals that are almost never utilized...how is this making things less immersive or realistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plotron Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Fox is theoretically correct here. OP, please give me an example of a poorly named chem and a suggested replacement for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacemanspark Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 ...'Fartonium'. I don't think I can think of a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crom Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 Shit. Effort. Aight, I will be back with a list. Possibly with name suggestions. Also I might have been focusing too much on the poorly named ones, I became blind to the.. clearly long list of decently named ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plotron Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 ...'Fartonium'.I don't think I can think of a replacement. Valid point. Fox, please change! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeletedUser Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 That and fliptonium(actually im not even sure if it exists at all), and I think there was another silly one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saaesculus Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 wait, fartonium exists here??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganzombeh Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I really don't see a problem with any commonly used chemical names. An argument could be made that names of harder to obtain chemicals like fliptonium and corgium are too gimmicky, but IMO that's not really an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTheHeadcrab Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Current Chem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfadiazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihemorrhagic#Styptics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol Old Chem: http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Kelotane http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Tricordrazine http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Dexalin I fail to see how the current chemical system is 'Unrealistic' at all, especially in comparison to the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liran424 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 If you ask me I prefer the old names. why? because they sound legit and they're fictional... and also because I love Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plotron Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I didn't even realize that it was a direct reference to Star Trek. Anyway, I liked the fictional chems because they're easier on the tongue and sci-fi in nature, making questions about insta-healing chems like styptic powder or why we're using 20th Century technology completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts