TheLostGenius wrote...
They should cut the Hammerhead from ME3 and just give Sheperd a Star Destroyer. Then he could go around blowing up planets with "bad guys on them" and the Reaper ships, with incredible ease.
kraidy1117 wrote...
No theres not Zulu. Fire needs oxygen. When the Normandy blows up, there should not have been fire, yet there is. That is not relistic so trying to bring in it's not relistic is just plain stupid. Hell we got people like Miri and others walking around with face mask or in Jacks case with nipples starps, in zero tempture areas, yes thats relistic.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 03:33 .
No... there isn't. All the sound and noise is added for our convenience. In the intro, you hear zero sound besides what's in Shepard's suit and I assume the same works for the rest of it. And take Physics. Fire can happen in space, you just need oxygen to supply it. Are you telling me the Normandy had no oxygen in it?kraidy1117 wrote...
Its the feture and it's a game. If you want to bring this crap up good for you, but there is fire and sound in space in ME and ME2 so ya your argument is useless.
Modifié par Cascadus, 28 mars 2010 - 03:40 .
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
It's not so much the question of being realistic I think, as much as it is the illusion of realism to the player. Whenever you give the player a greater degree of what the player feels is realistic, the more immersive the experience feels in combat. I think this is what they are trying to say. If it isn't then someone can jump in here and tell me.kraidy1117 wrote...
JohnnyDollar wrote...
It is not a matter of who is wrong or right here. I think though, your not hearing what they are trying to say.kraidy1117 wrote...
JohnnyDollar wrote...
@kraidy1117
Did you a few bong hits right before this debate?
No I did not. You can not bring in the talk of being relistic in a video game. To do it is just stupid. Thats like me saying it's not relistic that Shepard can get shot with five missles before he dies..... or that he can die and magicly respawn at an old checkpoint.
Guardian is a MAKO lover who is hostile to non MAKO fans, others are trying to pull the "it''s not relistic" argument which makes no sence because games are not relistic. Thats what I get from them. The Hammerhead just needs a coupld of upgrades and we are set to go. I am out of this thread now.
Modifié par JohnnyDollar, 28 mars 2010 - 03:36 .
TheLostGenius wrote...
kraidy1117 wrote...
This. Hammerhead is fantastic for exploring, not combat. Bucky sometimes you are a gem here.
That is an oxymoronic statement. There is no exploration on the hammerhead missions. They are 100% linear.
So, just how does it feel to be completely out of touch with reality?Zulu_DFA wrote...
Because back in ME1 it all made much more sense. And it's a pity that a would-be good sci-fi francise is brought down so soon to the level of Star Wars and Star Trek, just because the crowd wants more special effects, ****** and cornball, and "who cares?" about all the rest.
It's not about realism, and if they're making about that they automatically fail. It's about the logic of the fictional world we are exploring. You see in a world where you can create blackholes and throw people with your mind and travel between the stars, you wouldn't use vehicles with wheels anymore. For the same reasons human beings usually don't use horse drawn carriages today.JohnnyDollar wrote...
It's not so much the question of being realistic I think, as much as it is the illusion of realism to the player. Whenever you give the player a greater degree of what the player feels is realistic, the more immersive the experience feels in combat. I think this is what they are trying to say. If it isn't then someone can jump in here and tell me.
BTW I was joking with you about the bong statement. I am glad you didn't take it too seriously.
Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 04:00 .
Guest_JohnnyDollar_*
Perhaps not, but I think that is what they were trying to get at. Perhaps Cascadus will debate with you on that point. Personally I am somewhat indifferent about Mako vs Hammerhead.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
The thing about realism....you see in a world where you can create blackholes and throw people with your mind and travel between the stars, you wouldn't use vehicles with wheels anymore.JohnnyDollar wrote...
It's not so much the question of being realistic I think, as much as it is the illusion of realism to the player. Whenever you give the player a greater degree of what the player feels is realistic, the more immersive the experience feels in combat. I think this is what they are trying to say. If it isn't then someone can jump in here and tell me.
BTW I was joking with you about the bong statement. I am glad you didn't take it too seriously.
Modifié par JohnnyDollar, 28 mars 2010 - 04:04 .
That's inane logic. We still aren't using horse drawn carriages but we're still using the wheel. Hover engines just DON'T cut it for much locations. What about high gravity planets? A vehicle with wheels would handle it easily enough but the hover engines would need to battle against the high gravity and likely use far more fuel in doing so. It's just not very efficient.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
It's not about realism, and if they're making about that they automatically fail. It's about the logic of the fictional world we are exploring. You see in a world where you can create blackholes and throw people with your mind and travel between the stars, you wouldn't use vehicles with wheels anymore. For the same reasons human beings usually don't use horse drawn carriages today.JohnnyDollar wrote...
It's not so much the question of being realistic I think, as much as it is the illusion of realism to the player. Whenever you give the player a greater degree of what the player feels is realistic, the more immersive the experience feels in combat. I think this is what they are trying to say. If it isn't then someone can jump in here and tell me.
BTW I was joking with you about the bong statement. I am glad you didn't take it too seriously.
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
So, just how does it feel to be completely out of touch with reality?Zulu_DFA wrote...
Because back in ME1 it all made much more sense. And it's a pity that a would-be good sci-fi francise is brought down so soon to the level of Star Wars and Star Trek, just because the crowd wants more special effects, ****** and cornball, and "who cares?" about all the rest.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 04:26 .
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
It's really cute that you're trying to use science you don't even understand yourself to explain why certain completely made up technologies can or cannot work. lolz.Cascadus wrote...
That's inane logic. We still aren't using horse drawn carriages but we're still using the wheel. Hover engines just DON'T cut it for much locations. What about high gravity planets? A vehicle with wheels would handle it easily enough but the hover engines would need to battle against the high gravity and likely use far more fuel in doing so. It's just not very efficient.
You do realize that there is no physical way possible for the Mako to ever get back on the Normandy after it's launched planet side right?I don't ask for 100% realism, that's not fun. If ME were realistic, half the stuff in it would never happen, but it does have it's own rules and things that flat-out do not make sense within the context of the universe. This isn't about hovercraft operating in space. Not really. This is about keeping a suspension of disbelief in an otherwise very well grounded universe.
Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 04:16 .
Technically the kinetic barriers aren't defending against the solar radiation, it's simply overloading them. It's the hardsuits that keep Shepard's squadmates from learning they've been diagnosed with cancer after the mission.Zulu_DFA wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
So, just how does it feel to be completely out of touch with reality?Zulu_DFA wrote...
Because back in ME1 it all made much more sense. And it's a pity that a would-be good sci-fi francise is brought down so soon to the level of Star Wars and Star Trek, just because the crowd wants more special effects, ****** and cornball, and "who cares?" about all the rest.
- Hammerhead hovering in zero pressure environment
- high heels
- no squadmate armor (including bare skin in UV-irradiated vacuum and & kinetic barriers that stop solar radiation)
- powers work like magic and ammo upgrades like weapon enchantment.
- thermal clip ammo portrayed as an advancement of technology
- bullets travelling at speeds lower than those of modern time weapons
- alien fuсking (aside from asari that got a valid pass in ME1)
- drinking liquids through helmet's windshild
- mining gas gians for heavy metals
- "Thank you" e-mails from every single little folk that made it through ME1, and ~8 (!) encounters with old faces in a galaxy of trillions of people.
- "noone left behind" medal on the "suicide mission"
...dude, chill. It's interesting to see you call me an idiot and going 'f*** your suspension of disbelief, obviously don't understand what the term even means'. It's obvious you enjoy the Hammerhead. I don't.Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
You pullled this completely out ofrCascadus wrote...
That's
inane logic. We still aren't using horse drawn carriages but we're
still using the wheel. Hover engines just DON'T cut it for much
locations. What about high gravity planets? A vehicle with wheels would
handle it easily enough but the hover engines would need to battle
against the high gravity and likely use far more fuel in doing so. It's
just not very efficient.
you **** bro, not going to seriously respond to this garbage. Cute that
you're trying to use science to explain why certain completely made up
technologies can or cannot work.You do realize that there is no physical wayI don't ask for 100%
realism, that's not fun. If ME were realistic, half the stuff in it
would never happen, but it does have it's own rules and things that
flat-out do not make sense within the context of the universe. This
isn't about hovercraft operating in space. Not really. This is about
keeping a suspension of disbelief in an otherwise very well grounded
universe.
possible for the Mako to ever get back on the Normandy after it's
launched planet side right?
F*ck your suspension of disbelief,
obviously you don't understand what the term even means. There's
nothing even slightly unbelievable at all about a hovercraft in the
Mass Effect Universe, in fact it's one of the more tame things.
If
you have a hard time buying hovercraft in a universe with eternal
setient machines that destroy all life in the galaxy on a repeating
cycle you're obviously not a very bright person.
Modifié par Cascadus, 28 mars 2010 - 04:20 .
TheLostGenius wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
Lol. Wow. No fire on the sun huh? lol...wtf? It's energy, its fire.
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
So I was just imagining all those flying cars everywhere?Lambu1 wrote...
why all this hate for wheels? the game takes place in 2178 (87? damn dyslexia). there is no reason to think that the wheel would be gone in such a short time.
Lambu1 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
Lol. Wow. No fire on the sun huh? lol...wtf? It's energy, its fire.
bucky is actually right on this part, a flame front can't propogate through vacuum. so while there is plenty of oxygen inside the ship to burn, once the flame hits open space, it will die out immediatly. smoke trails would def exist though. the light you see from stars is left over from fusion, as the way stars burn is radically different from the way wood burns
That's great. You don't like the Hammerhead? Fine, no problem don't really care. But your arguments here are still completely retarded and defy logic.Cascadus wrote...
...dude, chill. It's interesting to see you call me an idiot and going 'f*** your suspension of disbelief, obviously don't understand what the term even means'. It's obvious you enjoy the Hammerhead. I don't.
TheLostGenius wrote...
Lambu1 wrote...
TheLostGenius wrote...
Bucky_McLachlan wrote...
Can't believe I'm even responding to this nonsense, but stars are naturally occuring nuclear fusion reactors, they aren't on fire you douche.Zulu_DFA wrote...
There's no oxygen on the Sun, yet it burns pretty well.
Lol. Wow. No fire on the sun huh? lol...wtf? It's energy, its fire.
bucky is actually right on this part, a flame front can't propogate through vacuum. so while there is plenty of oxygen inside the ship to burn, once the flame hits open space, it will die out immediatly. smoke trails would def exist though. the light you see from stars is left over from fusion, as the way stars burn is radically different from the way wood burns
The energy the sun creates is fire-like. What is the element burning on the sun?
Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 04:39 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut