234 réponses à ce sujet

[enormousmoonboots]

Sing it with me, kids!



"The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace! Where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees!"



When people say 'realism' in relation to Mass Effect, what they really mean is 'internal consistency'. The first game is more internally consistent than the second. There's a ****load of actual science and theory in the Codex justifying--or at least trying to justify--all the crazy stuff you can do. Mass Effect 2 is a little sloppier with its retcons, and people noticed. The first game gives you this simple fact: armor protects you from being shot to death. Heavier armor protects more. The second game contradicts that: armor of any weight is approximately as protective as a belt.



Mass Effect has always prided itself on its generally superior to most popular sci-fi science, just look at all the 'Science of Mass Effect' TV spots. Star Trek and Star Wars are in a completely different galaxy compared to ME when it comes to science and realism.

[Zulu_DFA]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

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.

So I was just imagining all those flying cars everywhere?

Sorry but no there is no logic in using a vehicle with wheels to explore planets in a world with flying cars.

The one and only reason Bioware did it was to try to cash in on the success of the vehicles in Halo and they failed, end of story.

1. Why haven't the main battle tanks been made redundant by the attack helicopters yet?

2. The "flying cars" or shuttles are not military vehicles. They are not meant to pack armor, weapons and hazardous environment equipment. All they need is a small eezo core to reduce their mass to  a minimum and propellant to make them fly.

3. If such a "flying car" gets hit in mid-air and its eezo core fails the crew is dead meat. A surface crawling APC/IFV isn't prone to that kind of destruction.

4. If it was absolutely necessary to give us a flying vehicle, why in hell make it a hovercraft? Hovering is freacking impossible on many cellestial bodies, that need to be explored and fought on.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 04:41 .

[Zulu_DFA]

enormousmoonboots wrote...

When people say 'realism' in relation to Mass Effect, what they really mean is 'internal consistency'. The first game is more internally consistent than the second. There's a ****load of actual science and theory in the Codex justifying--or at least trying to justify--all the crazy stuff you can do. Mass Effect 2 is a little sloppier with its retcons, and people noticed.

This. Except, "a little" falls a little short of the actual degree of ME2's sloppiness.

[Lambu1]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

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.

So I was just imagining all those flying cars everywhere?

Sorry but no there is no logic in using a vehicle with wheels to explore planets in a world with flying cars.

The one and only reason Bioware did it was to try to cash in on the success of the vehicles in Halo and they failed, end of story.

thats like saying because modern cities have electric cars like the GeeWiz, then the farms have no need for dirty diesel trucks.  modern militaries employ hovercraft for amphibious ops, should they replace the hummer with it, no.  just because flying cars work in the cities doesn't mean it would work in adverse conditions.  for all we know the cities are specially set up for those cars.  a hover system expends massive energy just holding one position in normal conditions, imagine how much would be expended in a high G enviroment.  and what about zero atmosphere, where hover systems don't work.  a wheeled vehicle makes far more sense for exploring unknown conditions because it is far more adaptable.  heck even the game states that the HH can't handle extreme cold enviroments.

edit:  zulu said it better

Modifié par Lambu1, 28 mars 2010 - 04:49 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

enormousmoonboots wrote...

Sing it with me, kids!

"The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace! Where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees!"

When people say 'realism' in relation to Mass Effect, what they really mean is 'internal consistency'. The first game is more internally consistent than the second. There's a ****load of actual science and theory in the Codex justifying--or at least trying to justify--all the crazy stuff you can do. Mass Effect 2 is a little sloppier with its retcons, and people noticed. The first game gives you this simple fact: armor protects you from being shot to death. Heavier armor protects more. The second game contradicts that: armor of any weight is approximately as protective as a belt.

Mass Effect has always prided itself on its generally superior to most popular sci-fi science, just look at all the 'Science of Mass Effect' TV spots. Star Trek and Star Wars are in a completely different galaxy compared to ME when it comes to science and realism.

Right I get that people are too dumb to realize that the science in the first game was totally bunk in the first place, but how the f*ck does whatever logic there was in the first game apply to a hovercraft?

I mean failing to understand why flying cars are okay, Saren's personal hovercraft is fine...but we have people saying that the Hammerhead defies the logic implied in the first game.

Oh ya, since you mention armor where was that codex entry about how armor never suffers any kind of physical damage, it always stays exactly the same and continues to mitigate a certain percent of damage after you lose your shields. I don't remember reading that one.

[Cascadus]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

Cascadus, you're complaining that a hovercraft of all things breaks your suspension of disbelief, in a futuristic/sci-fi universe with people that can manipulate dark energy with their minds, travel from one side of the galaxy to another almost instantaneously, where a race of eternal sentient machines wipes out all advanced life in the galaxy in a repeating cycle and other completely impossible crap.

If you can't understand at all why what you're saying is really stupid, well the obvious answer is because you're not very smart.

Ah yes, strawman AND ad hominem.
I give up. This irrefutable, completely logic and reasonable evidence and support you've brought up is too much for me to handle. It's rather impressive how you managed to completely unanswer my point and instead resorted to MORE fallacies. In fact, I have renounced all things Mako and wheeled because I know hate internal consistency within an established universe and the fact that higher gravity environments WILL need more thrust and thus more fuel to even stay aloft.
I'm tired and I get sick of trying to debate with people who don't have the common decency to exchange equal levels of respect so I bid you all adieu. May I hope this thread is not reflective of your IRL manner.

Modifié par Cascadus, 28 mars 2010 - 04:51 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Lambu1 wrote...

heck even the game states that the HH can't handle extreme cold enviroments.

Lol!!!

When the Hammerhead said it can catch cold, I was like: "What?! What the fuсking fuсk! And they are even triyng to sell me this SНIT is more advanced then the Mako? They must be thinking just like the OP, that I am not very smart!"

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 28 mars 2010 - 04:52 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Lambu1 wrote...

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

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.

So I was just imagining all those flying cars everywhere?

Sorry but no there is no logic in using a vehicle with wheels to explore planets in a world with flying cars.

The one and only reason Bioware did it was to try to cash in on the success of the vehicles in Halo and they failed, end of story.

thats like saying because modern cities have electric cars like the GeeWiz, then the farms have no need for dirty diesel trucks.  modern militaries employ hovercraft for amphibious ops, should they replace the hummer with it, no.  just because flying cars work in the cities doesn't mean it would work in adverse conditions.  for all we know the cities are specially set up for those cars.  a hover system expends massive energy just holding one position in normal conditions, imagine how much would be expended in a high G enviroment.  and what about zero atmosphere, where hover systems don't work.  a wheeled vehicle makes far more sense for exploring unknown conditions because it is far more adaptable.  heck even the game states that the HH can't handle extreme cold enviroments.

Dude I know you believe you're making good points but you're not.

It's already pretty much established in every science fiction story involving outer space travel that presense of an atmosphere is not a prerequisite for the possibility of flight.

And I'm not the first person to make the argument against wheeled vechicles being used in sci-fi stories like this. It's dumb, period.

I really don't give a damn if you disagree or not.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Cascadus wrote...

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

Cascadus, you're complaining that a hovercraft of all things breaks your suspension of disbelief, in a futuristic/sci-fi universe with people that can manipulate dark energy with their minds, travel from one side of the galaxy to another almost instantaneously, where a race of eternal sentient machines wipes out all advanced life in the galaxy in a repeating cycle and other completely impossible crap.

If you can't understand at all why what you're saying is really stupid, well the obvious answer is because you're not very smart.

Ah yes, strawman AND ad hominem.
I give up. This irrefutable, completely logic and reasonable evidence and support you've brought up is too much for me to handle. It's rather impressive how you managed to completely unanswer my point and instead resorted to MORE fallacies. In fact, I have renounced all things Mako and wheeled because I know hate internal consistency within an established universe and the fact that higher gravity environments WILL need more thrust and thus more fuel to even stay aloft.
I'm tired and I get sick of trying to debate with people who don't have the common decency to exchange equal levels of respect so I bid you all adieu. May I hope this thread is not reflective of your IRL manner.

Sorry bro can't understand you through all the dumb.

[Lambu1]

but an atmoshere is required for the hammerheads turbofans to operate. it would have been better if it floated on eezo antigrav pods, at least those would operate in any conditions

[Bucky_McLachlan]

.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 05:05 .

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Lambu1 wrote...

but an atmoshere is required for the hammerheads turbofans to operate. it would have been better if it floated on eezo antigrav pods, at least those would operate in any conditions

Turbofans? I didn't read the codex entry on it, but if that's what it says that's pretty stupid.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lambu1 wrote...

but an atmoshere is required for the hammerheads turbofans to operate. it would have been better if it floated on eezo antigrav pods, at least those would operate in any conditions

It would not have been better, because it would not resemble Avatar and Starcraft 2 Banshee's.

[Lambu1]

i don't know what the codex says but the HH quite clearly has turbofans mounted on it. and i wasn't serious about the antigrav quip, it was more about the point of useless hover systems. i'mma go play with my mako now.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

Oh so you just said that it requires an atmosphere but have no proof of what kind of make believe technology allows it to operate. Okay.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 06:05 .

[DoNotResistHate]

You can quite easily see the turbines Bucky. Ya not sure why they wouldn't just make them eezo anti-grav pods like the other person said would make more sense.

[DoNotResistHate]

I have to say I agree with the people that said it would make no ****ing sense to have turbines on it. On any planet with no atmosphere you would get more thrust from farting than you would from a turbine engine.

Modifié par DoNotResistHate, 28 mars 2010 - 06:29 .

[NoBrandOnMe]

I'm all for the MAKO..

The Hammerhead missions got boring after the first one. Completely linear and the combat was lawl. Why are you complaining about get mineral nodes with the MAKO?? Its faaaar better then this planet scanning system they have now.

[Lord Coake]

Baneblade>Mako>Hammerhead
^
I want to go tearing through a fully manned Cerberus base with one.

[Bucky_McLachlan]

DoNotResistHate wrote...

You can quite easily see the turbines Bucky. Ya not sure why they wouldn't just make them eezo anti-grav pods like the other person said would make more sense.

No what you can see quite clearly is that you are making assumptions. The aesthetic design of these engines does not in and of itself imply anything about how it works, and how the vehicle itself functions certianly doesn't imply the necessity of an atmosphere.

In fact I'm going to go with the theory that some kind of energy field allows the vehicle to hover, based purely on visual evidence because that's exactly what it looks like. The pods on the sides are there to allow the vehicle to jump, you don't need an atmosphere to use thrusters ya know.

Modifié par Bucky_McLachlan, 28 mars 2010 - 06:38 .

[DoNotResistHate]

maybe the turbine in the back is just used for making it jump up in the air though. I don't think I ever got a a good enough look at the ones in the front they could actually be anti-grav pads. Still that would be a huge weakness if it couldn't jump in low atmosphere/no atmosphere worlds because take away the ability of the thing to jump and it becomes way worse at navigating difficult terrain than the Mako.

[Lambu1]

wow, the codex entry makes even less sense. "Using three solid fuel rocket thrusters instead of wheels." gtfo, turbofans would have made more sense then that. solid rocket thrusters are about as inefficient as it gets.

[DoNotResistHate]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

DoNotResistHate wrote...

You can quite easily see the turbines Bucky. Ya not sure why they wouldn't just make them eezo anti-grav pods like the other person said would make more sense.

No what you can see quite clearly is that you are making assumptions. The aesthetic design of these engines does not in and of itself imply anything about how it works, and how the vehicle itself functions certianly doesn't imply the necessity of an atmosphere.

In fact I'm going to go with the theory that some kind of energy field allows the vehicle to hover, based purely on visual evidence because that's exactly what it looks like. The pods on the sides are there to allow the vehicle to jump, you don't need an atmosphere to use thrusters ya know.

 

So the fan in back that is clearly designed for thrust is there for what reason?
 Do you know nothing about the air craft engine design?  It sure seems like it.  More likely though is that you are in denial about it for some reason.  Just admit it's a plot hole and move on. Like you pointed out there are worse problems than that with ME2.  Like how they downgraded every gun in the known universe in only two years.   Having a hybrid of the two systems = upgrade(if you run out of thermals gun will still fire it just overheats as in ME1) having only thermal clips = down grade because you can in theory run out of ammo. Which would you rather have a gun that can't shoot because it's out of thermals or a gun that overheats if you shoot it to fast? 

Modifié par DoNotResistHate, 28 mars 2010 - 06:58 .

[DoNotResistHate]

Not only did they complete the downgrade in two years but Shepard woke up and acted like every gun he had ever used functioned that way.