1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Turin_4]

When I critique, I critique ME2. Not you.

Perhaps when you start criticism, you criticize ME2, but when people challenge your criticisms, very quickly things turn to insults and variations on the theme of 'you're stupid'.

You literally prove yourself to be an idiot a few pages back, by being unable to answer the question of something coming from nothing, by dodging the question, or simply disregarding it entirely.

I didn't dodge the question or disregard it, I provided an alternate explanation. You dodged my explanation, which is very ironic considering your accusation. The explanation I offered was, "It's not something coming from nothing, clearly the 'button pushing' isn't just nothing, case in point, look at AI hacking, there's obviously something more than just pushing buttons," and your response was...wait for it..."This isn't about AI hacking."

When Tali, Shepard, or Legion hacks an AI, obviously they've got something prepared on their omni tools.  Why can't you just tolerate the gameplay convention that when Shepard, Garrus, Zaeed, etc., do their Ammo powers, they're not just puyshing a button, they're pressing a config to do something they've prepared ahead?

Yes, I obviously 'proved myself to be an idiot.

I'm not here to tell you you're an idiot, nor do I want to. But if it helps you learn, and see your mistakes, well why not.

C'mon. Can you even find someone who supports your opinions on these forums, who agrees with your outlook, who will say you don't enjoy putting people down, and get some satisfaction from it? At least cop to that.

Because not all classes could use all ammo mods.Is there any reason why an engineer,sentinel or adept couldnt use
inferno or cyro ammo?(only the weaker squad versions) Its a dumb restriction without any sense.
There have to be better ways to make a soldier interesting.Exclusive heavy weapon training for example.That would make sense at least.

Tonnactus, I can't quite parse your post. Could you rephrase, please?

Modifié par Turin_4, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:08 .

[smudboy]

Pauravi wrote...
How do you know that?  We don't actually know the laws, so perhaps we are and just don't know it.  For instance, is AP or Shredder ammo illegal, or restricted to the military?  What about heavy weapons?  There is also at least one weapon you can use whose design apparently violates international treaties (the Eviscerator).

The specific laws are not the issue.  I believe there was a mission in ME1 where you help a detective out acquire some illegal weapon mod on the black market.  You can literally keep the weapon mod if you so choose.  This puts you within the world of the black market, literally having a piece of it.

In ME2, there's "illegal weapons tech" that you find Pitne has been smuggling, but you can't touch or take it.  Considering the "rush" to stop the collectors, I'd have imagined using taking every advantage possible would've been a theme. But, inventory went byebye, and guns got retconned.

As for weapon mods, they still exist in the form of the improvements (+10% damage, more heat sink capacity, etc).  The thing is that most of the weapon mods in ME1 either increased damage (which ME2 mods do), decreased heat buildup (a mechanic that no longer exists), or improved accuracy and recoil (which are now integral aspects of the different guns used to balance them against each other).  There simply wasn't any way to hold onto most of those ideas.

Well, those are two different things.  Upgrades are fine and dandy, I'm not arguing that.

Weapon mods could've been just as integral as the ME2 guns or the ME2 upgrades.

Ammo mods still exist, too.  They just call them ammo "powers" now, which is maybe a bad term, but I don't find it too hard to imagine that it is some modification that the character makes to the weapon that requires some specific knowledge or practice to use properly.  Sort of the same way that it requires specialized knowledge to make your own dumdum bullets, or to effectively use a taser, or the best way to aim and use riot-control weapons or rounds.

But they're not making a modification.  They're just pressing a few buttons.  The issue becomes "how is this possible?"  What aspect of the lore of being a certain class, or having the knowledge of a skill, to modify a gun, does this make any sense?  Does every gun in the universe have this same multi-ammo type feature?  If so, why can't we all just press buttons on it?

It's the equivalent of adding rum to coke, or having a skill that somehow gives coke rum in it, when the rum came out of nowhere.  It's physically impossible.

I've never once seen you say anything positive about it, you seem to chime in in every possible thread where you might have the opportunity to trash some aspect of the game or another, and for any given nit-pick you have, you always choose whatever uncharitable interpretation gives you the most flaws to point out.  You alternately make the simplest assumption possible if it means you can criticize some element of the game, and will then drill down to the tiniest technical detail to point out how poorly thought out something else is. Frankly, it gets pretty tiresome to watch you start the same nonsense "ME2 is terrible" diatribes and arguments in every other thread.

If you want to go onto a forum and talk about good things, be my guest.  That's not what I do.  If I truly loved or hated something, there'd be no need to be on here.  I'd be happy in my little world, or I wouldn't even be able to sit through the thing.

My focus is storytelling, because I like things to mean something.  But, there are other things which don't make sense (I go with how things make sense, including game play.)  And there's nothing wrong with declaring ones observations and thoughts thereof.

[smudboy]

Turin_4 wrote...
Perhaps when you start criticism, you criticize ME2, but when people challenge your criticisms, very quickly things turn to insults and variations on the theme of 'you're stupid'.

That's because they prove themselves to be stupid.  Nowhere do I start name calling for the sake of it.

I didn't dodge the question or disregard it, I provided an alternate explanation. You dodged my explanation, which is very ironic considering your accusation. The explanation I offered was, "It's not something coming from nothing, clearly the 'button pushing' isn't just nothing, case in point, look at AI hacking, there's obviously something more than just pushing buttons," and your response was...wait for it..."This isn't about AI hacking."

Yes, I obviously 'proved myself to be an idiot.

I would call that proving yourself to be an idiot, yes.

Here's your second opportunity: explain to me how pushing a button on a gun that changes its ammo type is more believable than adding something to the gun that changes its ammo type.  Do not talk about other things.  Talk about what I just asked you.

C'mon. Can you even find someone who supports your opinions on these forums, who agrees with your outlook, who will say you don't enjoy putting people down, and get some satisfaction from it? At least cop to that.

I love it when people tell me I'm an idiot.  It's makes me go "hmm, what do I not understand?"  This not only clarifies what I already know, it reaffirms it.  In the odd chance I missed something, I might actually learn something.  So really it's win-win for me.  Other people don't like name calling, but I have no problems with it, especially if the name has meaning.  I'm big on meaning.

[Vala Ntal]

I was disappoint by one thing. It could be place more emphasis on Shepard´s class in movie sequences and speaking with oder NPC. It doesn´t matter if you played for soldier or adept. For example soldier will handle situation by raw power (hand combat, guns, etc) and despite the adept will use his/her bionic abilities (Warp, singularity, throw, etc). I know it isn´t big deal, but I think it will be more realistic. I played for adept and look little strange when my Shepard gave head a big Krogan warrior. I suppose adept have smaller body strength  than solider. 
Thanks Bioware for ME and KOTOR games, good work:).  
(Sorry for my English.)

[Turin_4]

Here's your second opportunity: explain to me how pushing a button on a gun that changes its ammo type is more believable than adding something to the gun that changes its ammo type. Do not talk about other things. Talk about what I just asked you.

I don't need a second opportunity when I've already used the first opportunity, smudboy. The pushing buttons method already works just fine if you accept perfectly valid gameplay conventions.

You don't get to limit the dialogue in such a way that you automatically win the question, smudboy.  That's dishonest.  Not when there's another perfectly valid possibility out there, which I'll explain again, in greater detail:

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons. Because remember, unlike ME1, you can't carry scores of weapons, but only about, what is it, ten or twelve on any given mission or assignment, period, amongst the entire group? You've got a guy - Jacob - who works in an armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

Show us how smart you are, smudboy. Poke holes in this explanation using this keen analytical mind you've got.  You enjoy being criticized, I've criticized your ideas, poked holes in your analysis, showcased why they're lacking.  Show where I'm wrong.  Don't just refuse - again - to address it, because that just leads me to conclude you can't.  I've addressed your complaints, repeatedly.

Modifié par Turin_4, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Lumikki]

Turin_4 wrote...

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons. Because remember, unlike ME1, you can't carry scores of weapons, but only about, what is it, ten or twelve on any given mission or assignment, period, amongst the entire group? You've got a guy - Jacob - who works in an armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

I don't try to poke any holes, but i give my opinions. It seem resonable what you say, but there is few stuff what I'm consern here.

1. Weapons has physical ammo limits. You could change you ammo abilities just by "software", it doesn't seem so believable. More like it would require you actually need to change them physically. You can't make by software ammos to cyro or explosive. It would require that every weapon has some new feature, like some addional tank for these elements. And everytime you fire weapon the ammo would need to be build inside the weapons. Yes, You can invent some explanation, but it isn't believable. More reasonable and easyer explanation would be that player choose ammo clips when going to missions.

2. Power impression and avalibility. Because game has also bionic power, making ammos to power makes them feel like some bionic power, even if it's not so. This is important for impression sake, if you class has no bionic powers. Also if ammo powers are only for sertain classes, then it removes options for other classes to use special ammos, what isn't so good thing.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:59 .

[Moiaussi]

[quote]Turin_4 wrote...

I know vaguely what the word means, and am aware that it's not actually technobabble in the context, but actually I was accusing you of just throwing it out there in the technobabble sense.  The fact that your comeback was, "Nuh-uh, come back when you've got a clue!" pretty much confirms that I was right.[/quote]

An algorithm is a specific method consisting of steps, and is a commonly used term in computer science and programming. It was the right term for the sentance. To put the sentance in lay terms, I was saying 'adjust the hacking approach or method on the fly.' You, only being vaguely aware of what the word means accused me of using technobabble and therefore being wrong. You are still ignoring what I actually said and are essentially saying that since you didn't understand the term I used that you are right and I am wrong.

You are using your own ignorance as a defence (and another red herring).

[quote]But you did have to in ME1.  Anyone, anytime, instantly, could mod their weapons and armor while in fact carrying around dozesns of sets of weapons and armor anywhere.  Are we going to pretend that didn't require suspension of disbelief, or does the sainted ME1 game not get the same Internet Critic treatment?[/quote]

And if that had suddenly been limited to being done on ship I wouldn't have the same complaints. But I am not complaining about that. I am complaining about ammunition choices, which are a much more reasonable subset of that. Straw man. You are exaggerating my arguement into something it is not (again) to pretend you can shoot it down easily.

[quote]At last!  Sound reasoning.  Though you're not trying this 'again', since these things are new coming from you, mostly.[/quote]

That is the same reasoning I used initially. You either misread or misrepresented me and have been trying to misrepresent me ever since, insisting that I go back and re-read my own posts rather than go back and re-read them yourself and realize you were wrong about what you thought I said.

[quote]Yes, tIM lied.  That proves...what, exactly?  That he knew the Turians had not sent the distress signal, but the Collectors had.  That's it.  Just imagine, for a moment, Moiaussi, and try to discard your silly notion that tIM is insane for this moment while you're imagining: you've spent an enormous amount of resources on Shepard, the Normandy, its crew, and everything else.  Things are really coming up against the wall, you're running out of time, and you stumble across a Collector ship broadcasting an obviously fake distress call in the middle of nowhere with no signs of anything having happened anywhere near them.

That, to me, would sound like an absurd risk, even in wartime.  It might be what happened, in which case we've got some sloppy writing and darn, but not the end of the world (despite what you Internet critics think).  But it does't seem likely to me, and it's certainly not the only possibility.

Second, do we remember where exactly the 'disabled' Collector ship was when this happened?  I don't.  I remember things being left pretty vague.  tIM says, "Found it, go here," and you do.  Can anyone source it?[/quote]

Per TIM "Beyond the Korlus system." Korlus has a 'travel advisory' in game (per the wiki):

[quote]TRAVEL ADVISORY: Korlus ranks second in murder per capita in the Terminus Systems and first in offworld murder. Civilian traffic is encouraged to employ security professionals when visiting. [/quote]

So it is definately in the Terminus systems. The distress call is likely a trap for stupid pirates (those too stupid to question why Turian vessels would be in the Terminus systems)  rather than for the Turians, although I suppose it could have been an attempt to get the Turians to trigger a war with the Terminus systems. No clue how that would help them though. Most likely it was bad writing that we are not supposed to think about.

Furthermore, TIM confirms that the broadcast came from the Collector vessel, not any Turian vessels.

 contains clips of both (although for some reason part is blacked out in the middle).

[quote]First of all, do you have a source for my saying tIM has hacked all communications everywhere?  No, of course not, because I never said or suggested that.  Never even came close to it.  The closest I did was say it would be something he would want to do.  I'm trying to think of a more charitable word than 'lying' for what you're doing here.[/quote]

Nice backpedal. The choices are (1) TIM hacked them all (2) TIM inexplicably had that one (and not others) hacked (3) TIM had Turian central command hacked. You stated that he would want to have them hacked as if it was what really had happened. Then when I pointed out he implausability of that, you tried to say he likely had Turian central command hacked instead (again on the basis that he would want to). You are the one making those claims and now are saying you weren't really making them.

If you aren't making those claims, how did TIM jam the transmission?

[quote][quote]Real-time communication is possible thanks to networks of expensive mass relay comm buoys that can daisy-chain a transmission via lasers.[/quote]

*much clipped*

[quote]During wartime, comm buoy networks are the first target of an attack. Once the network is severed, it can take anywhere from weeks to years to get a message out of a contested system. In systems where a buoy network has not yet been built or has been destroyed, rapid communication means ferrying information through high-speed courier ships and unmanned data drones. [/quote]

tIM wouldn't need to hack everything.  And I have already explained, repeatedly, why the Turian military would be a special target for him to covertly spy on and - in a special Reaper/Collector case - take action about.  Use some damn imagination.[/quote]

Not everything, but since he couldn't have known in advance that a collector ship would spring a trap right there, he had to have had at least the majority of the Terminus systems tapped for it to be believable. Note your quote
doesn't say anything about anyone hacking them, merely eliminating them.

Note that the bouys themselves are bad writing. They are described as interlinked by lasers, and any given vessel or system communicates with them via conventional lightspeed transmissions, yet no matter how far from the nearest bouy, all communications are in real time.

[quote]This question from the guy for whom if pirate ships aren't seen, they don't exist?[/quote]

I never said they don't exist. I said there aren't sufficient numbers that they can be everywhere they might need to be. But go on, keep making up your own versions of conversations. I also said that pirate capital ships may not exist and that there is good reason to doubt the existance of such, but that is a different thing too. You seem to think a frigate is a capital ship.

[quote]
No.  I've said it before, jackass, and I'll say it again: what I think happened is that tIM learned of a failed Turian attack, and decided to go for the Collector trap because it's war, and delay the Turian investigation using his tools already in place in Turian military communications.  It would cost him some substantial resources and espionage damage, but it's war.  Every government?  Yeah, I totally said or suggested that somewhere.  Straw men indeed.[/quote]

Ah yes, a failed Turian attack in the Terminus systems and Turian military communications hacked to a heavy degree but for some reason only Turian (why would he hack the Asari? Or Alliance? Or Batarans? He doesn't consider them worth the effort?). No, he just happens to have hacked just enough to make the plot work? The Turians just happen to be patrolling an area of space the Council is vehemently opposed to entering? How convenient.....

[Turin_4]

1. Weapons has physical ammo limits. You could change you ammo
abilities just by "software", it doesn't seem so believable. More like
it would require you actually need to change them physically. You can't
make by software ammos to cyro or explosive. It would require that every
weapon has some new feature, like some addional tank for these
elements. And everytime you fire weapon the ammo would need to be build
inside the weapons. Yes, You can invent some explanation, but it isn't
believable. More reasonable and easyer explanation would be that player
choose ammo clips when going to missions.

In the ME universe, there really is no functional ammunition limit.  The clips you have aren't actually ammunition in ME2.

----

And if that had suddenly been limited to being done on ship
I wouldn't have the same complaints. But I am not complaining about
that. I am complaining about ammunition choices, which are a much more
reasonable subset of that. Straw man. You are exaggerating my arguement
into something it is not (again) to pretend you can shoot it down
easily.

No.  You and smudboy are complaining that it's ridiculous that you can 'just push a few buttons to modify ammunition', among other things.  It's not.  For the reasons I've explained.  If it's not ridiculous that you can hack AIs or overload shields with a button push, because of course that would require complicated prearranged tasks in place to accomplish, then it's not ridiculous that you could accomplish modifying ammunition with pre-set weapons when you've got a highly specialized armory either.

Explain to me, using small words and clear sentences, how that is a straw man.  We'll stick to this, and only this, just so you can't weasel out of anything else.  I won't even talk about anything other than this.  You can consider yourselves as having won ever other topic under discussion for all I care.  I obviously don't think that, of course, but there must be some method that will get the pair of you magnificent Internet Critics to stick to one topic and be nailed down.  You were both entirely right and I was completely, 110% wrong.  Explain what part of this is mistaken and ridiculous.

[Frybread76]

Turin_4 wrote...

1. Weapons has physical ammo limits. You could change you ammo
abilities just by "software", it doesn't seem so believable. More like
it would require you actually need to change them physically. You can't
make by software ammos to cyro or explosive. It would require that every
weapon has some new feature, like some addional tank for these
elements. And everytime you fire weapon the ammo would need to be build
inside the weapons. Yes, You can invent some explanation, but it isn't
believable. More reasonable and easyer explanation would be that player
choose ammo clips when going to missions.

In the ME universe, there really is no functional ammunition limit.  The clips you have aren't actually ammunition in ME2.

----

And if that had suddenly been limited to being done on ship
I wouldn't have the same complaints. But I am not complaining about
that. I am complaining about ammunition choices, which are a much more
reasonable subset of that. Straw man. You are exaggerating my arguement
into something it is not (again) to pretend you can shoot it down
easily.

No.  You and smudboy are complaining that it's ridiculous that you can 'just push a few buttons to modify ammunition', among other things.  It's not.  For the reasons I've explained.  If it's not ridiculous that you can hack AIs or overload shields with a button push, because of course that would require complicated prearranged tasks in place to accomplish, then it's not ridiculous that you could accomplish modifying ammunition with pre-set weapons when you've got a highly specialized armory either.

Explain to me, using small words and clear sentences, how that is a straw man.  We'll stick to this, and only this, just so you can't weasel out of anything else.  I won't even talk about anything other than this.  You can consider yourselves as having won ever other topic under discussion for all I care.  I obviously don't think that, of course, but there must be some method that will get the pair of you magnificent Internet Critics to stick to one topic and be nailed down.  You were both entirely right and I was completely, 110% wrong.  Explain what part of this is mistaken and ridiculous.

?  The heat sinks sure function like ammunition:  They create an upper limit to how many times you can use your gun.

What's that old saying, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

[RiouHotaru]

Turin_4 wrote...

Here's your second opportunity: explain to me how pushing a button on a gun that changes its ammo type is more believable than adding something to the gun that changes its ammo type. Do not talk about other things. Talk about what I just asked you.

I don't need a second opportunity when I've already used the first opportunity, smudboy. The pushing buttons method already works just fine if you accept perfectly valid gameplay conventions.

You don't get to limit the dialogue in such a way that you automatically win the question, smudboy.  That's dishonest.  Not when there's another perfectly valid possibility out there, which I'll explain again, in greater detail:

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons. Because remember, unlike ME1, you can't carry scores of weapons, but only about, what is it, ten or twelve on any given mission or assignment, period, amongst the entire group? You've got a guy - Jacob - who works in an armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

Show us how smart you are, smudboy. Poke holes in this explanation using this keen analytical mind you've got.  You enjoy being criticized, I've criticized your ideas, poked holes in your analysis, showcased why they're lacking.  Show where I'm wrong.  Don't just refuse - again - to address it, because that just leads me to conclude you can't.  I've addressed your complaints, repeatedly.

Yeah, I'm with Turin.  Since they eliminated the inventory system (thank god) they still needed a gameplay convention to provide us with ammo mods, which come in the form of ammo powers.  It's not unbelievable to think that ammo mods take the form of software programs that cause the gun to "do" something to the ammo.  Because otherwise we wouldn't have ammo mods AT ALL.  I mean, why are nitpicking over ammo powers when the fact a non-biotic Shepard can pick up a biotic bonus power is available?  Oh wait, I forgot, it's a gameplay convention, completely removed from the story.

A lot of these gameplay nitpicks fall under this category time and time again.  They're mechanics which make the gameplay better, but don't necessarily make perfect sense in the context of the setting.  But that happens ALL the time.  You should learn to accept that these occur.  Simply because they exist doesn't weaken the game.  It's simply a natural conflict that occurs between writers and programmers.  You can't explain everything.

Also, I heard a complaint about the 'Mission Complete' screen being jarring and breaking immersion.  Well, to be honest, it makes more sense than earning XP mid-mission like ME1.  All it is, is a screen that shows an overal assessment of the mission.  RPGs will have that, no way around it.

[Moiaussi]

You realize there is a difference between "disappointment" and "OMG, this is the worst game ever!"...?

[Frybread76]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Turin_4 wrote...

Here's your second opportunity: explain to me how pushing a button on a gun that changes its ammo type is more believable than adding something to the gun that changes its ammo type. Do not talk about other things. Talk about what I just asked you.

I don't need a second opportunity when I've already used the first opportunity, smudboy. The pushing buttons method already works just fine if you accept perfectly valid gameplay conventions.

You don't get to limit the dialogue in such a way that you automatically win the question, smudboy.  That's dishonest.  Not when there's another perfectly valid possibility out there, which I'll explain again, in greater detail:

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons. Because remember, unlike ME1, you can't carry scores of weapons, but only about, what is it, ten or twelve on any given mission or assignment, period, amongst the entire group? You've got a guy - Jacob - who works in an armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

Show us how smart you are, smudboy. Poke holes in this explanation using this keen analytical mind you've got.  You enjoy being criticized, I've criticized your ideas, poked holes in your analysis, showcased why they're lacking.  Show where I'm wrong.  Don't just refuse - again - to address it, because that just leads me to conclude you can't.  I've addressed your complaints, repeatedly.

Yeah, I'm with Turin.  Since they eliminated the inventory system (thank god) they still needed a gameplay convention to provide us with ammo mods, which come in the form of ammo powers.  It's not unbelievable to think that ammo mods take the form of software programs that cause the gun to "do" something to the ammo.  Because otherwise we wouldn't have ammo mods AT ALL.  I mean, why are nitpicking over ammo powers when the fact a non-biotic Shepard can pick up a biotic bonus power is available?  Oh wait, I forgot, it's a gameplay convention, completely removed from the story.

A lot of these gameplay nitpicks fall under this category time and time again.  They're mechanics which make the gameplay better, but don't necessarily make perfect sense in the context of the setting.  But that happens ALL the time.  You should learn to accept that these occur.  Simply because they exist doesn't weaken the game.  It's simply a natural conflict that occurs between writers and programmers.  You can't explain everything.

Also, I heard a complaint about the 'Mission Complete' screen being jarring and breaking immersion.  Well, to be honest, it makes more sense than earning XP mid-mission like ME1.  All it is, is a screen that shows an overal assessment of the mission.  RPGs will have that, no way around it.

But they shouldn't have gotten rid of the inventory, just made it better than in ME1.  Then there would have been no need for ammo super powers -- you could still have mods or attachments to add to your weapon in between missions.

[Frybread76]

Moiaussi wrote...

You realize there is a difference between "disappointment" and "OMG, this is the worst game ever!"...?

This distinction is not always clear to reactionary fanboys/fangirls until they have taken a breath and vented their rage.

[smudboy]

Turin_4 wrote...

I don't need a second opportunity when I've already used the first opportunity, smudboy. The pushing buttons method already works just fine if you accept perfectly valid gameplay conventions.

I am not referring to game play conventions.  This is not about game play conventions.  This is about understanding how a thing works, and especially, your belief that a ammo power is MORE believable than a weapon mod.  Which you've STILL been unable to explain.

You don't get to limit the dialogue in such a way that you automatically win the question, smudboy.  That's dishonest.  Not when there's another perfectly valid possibility out there, which I'll explain again, in greater detail:

I have no intention of limiting your method of expression.  In fact I need you to be expressive on how an ammo power is MORE believable than a weapon mod.  I'm asking a specific question, and you are failing to answer it.  But let's see what you've come up with this time.

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

Considering this is 1) the same thing they do in ME1, 2) nothing to do with weapons, I fail to see the point you're making.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons.

Okay.  Please explain to me how pushing a few things on their weapons -- which are a pre-arranged series of commands -- make them shoot fire bullets, anti-shield bullets, etc.

Because remember, unlike ME1, you can't carry scores of weapons, but only about, what is it, ten or twelve on any given mission or assignment, period, amongst the entire group? You've got a guy - Jacob - who works in an armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

I'm asking you how a gun is able to fire a bunch of different types of ammunition based on a personal "skill".  You pointing to Jacob doesn't tell me what that involves.  All you've said so far is "A = A."  You are explaining what A is, aside from saying "It's just like AI hacking."  I noticed you mentioned Jacob.  Please explain to me what Jacob is doing.  Aside from situps.

Well, AI hacking is not the same as a weapon mod or of ammo powers.

Show us how smart you are, smudboy. Poke holes in this explanation using this keen analytical mind you've got.  You enjoy being criticized, I've criticized your ideas, poked holes in your analysis, showcased why they're lacking.  Show where I'm wrong.  Don't just refuse - again - to address it, because that just leads me to conclude you can't.  I've addressed your complaints, repeatedly.

And yet you still can't answer the question:

How does a thing come from nothing?
or
How does a weapon mod be LESS believable in modifying the ammo type of a GUN by attaching itself to said gun, then an "ammo power" skill allows an individual to simply press a few buttons?  We're not talking about a game play mechanic.  We're talking about the actual gun.

AI hacking is a skill.  I can hack a few systems with a computer.  This is essentially what AI hacking involves: taking over the systems of computer (the Geth are computers.)  I'm guessing a radio signal of various bandwidths is sent to the Geth platform, that overloads their functions, and voila, we get a hacked Geth platform to fight for us for a few seconds.

Now back to ammo powers.  I cannot create matter with a "skill."  I cannot suddenly make my Coca-Cola become a Rum and Coke, unless I have Rum handy.  It may be a skill to combine the Rum with the Coke to make a nice drink, but I still need the Rum.  So, unless EVERY GUN in the UNIVERSE (or in our case, Jacob's workshop) has the feature to allow for 1) Fire, 2) Electromagnetics, 3) Armor piercing, 4) "Shredder", 5) and some kind of Biotic Bullet stuff, then there would be no switch to flip.  There is no "skill" involved here.  Something cannot come from nothing.

Whereas a weapon mod modifies the behavior of a gun.  There is an entire culture behind weapon mods in ME1: who has the best ones, which are illegal, etc.  They do a number of things.  And yes, because inventory was removed, ME2 had to come up with something to fix this.  I do not care about this application: the game play element is irrelevant.  We're talking about having a THING doing something else to ANOTHER THING.  Weapon Mod->Gun = different bullets.

How is that less believable than an ammo power?

I think what you're trying to say is:
1) Jacob made all the guns have all the abilities, a la Judge Dredd.  I'm assuming this would have to occur for EVERYONE since there are SQUAD based ammo powers, which implies some kind of network command button that overrides the SKILL of another person who might have an ammo power on that gun.  So does that mean someons' "skill" in altering other guns is GREATER, and supersedes someone elses "skill" in telling their gun to be a certain ammo type?
2) These Jacob Abilities would have to then take into account BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY as peoples loyalty skills become unlocked, since he'd have to modify every single gun manufactured to have those potential 5 features.

This raises several questions:
1) Why can't anyone just press the button to use the ammo powers?
2) Why would anyone want to use multiple ammo powers, when the Biotic Ammo power is the best?

Now if this is not your answer, please, enlighten me.  I'm curious as to how this ammo power of yours works, and is MORE believable than a weapon mod.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 octobre 2010 - 06:28 .

[RiouHotaru]

...Whether it's less believeable or not is irrelevant. They couldn't have weapon/ammo mods in this game since they eliminated the ridiculously cumbersome inventory system, and they wanted to retain the ammo types used in the previous game, which we all partook of.



Hence: Ammo Powers.



Even it's not believable or explained properly, it's a compromise. Would you rather we not have special ammo at ALL? And don't argue that we could have ammo mods, remember, ME2 did not allow nor have mods. The only "mods" we have are the upgrades we purchase or find.



Once again, you're arguing that a gameplay mechanic doesn't conform to the story or setting, when it doesn't have to.

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Whether it's less believeable or not is irrelevant. They couldn't have weapon/ammo mods in this game since they eliminated the ridiculously cumbersome inventory system, and they wanted to retain the ammo types used in the previous game, which we all partook of.

Hence: Ammo Powers.

Even it's not believable or explained properly, it's a compromise. Would you rather we not have special ammo at ALL? And don't argue that we could have ammo mods, remember, ME2 did not allow nor have mods. The only "mods" we have are the upgrades we purchase or find.

Once again, you're arguing that a gameplay mechanic doesn't conform to the story or setting, when it doesn't have to.

No, I'm arguing based on this:
http://social.biowar...1292/13#4961591

Yeah, that sounds much less realistic.

[Turin_4]

I am not referring to game play conventions.  This is not about game
play conventions.  This is about understanding how a thing works, and
especially, your belief that a ammo power is MORE believable than a
weapon mod.  Which you've STILL been unable to explain.

Of course it is.  In ME1, you looked favorably on a gameplay convention-namely, magically being able to stop time and carry around what amounted to limitless weapons, armor, and mods to ammunition and armor and weapons, and to be able to switch them in and out in any conditions instantly.  Even if - I think, but I'm not sure - you were under fire.  This was somehow 'more believable'.

But you're completely overlooking that gameplay convention.  You're talking as though you're not even considering gameplay conventions, discussing things only in terms of plausibility now, when that is self-evidently not the case.  What's true is that you're only discussing the gameplay conventions you want to discuss, which is quite different.

I believe that an ammo power is actually an ammo mod.  I've explained that repeatedly now.  You cannot possibly have missed it.  I believe an ammunition power is actually a weapon specialist using their years of training and knowledge to trick out their weapons in the armory with the assistance of Jacob, EDI, and minifacturing to the point where, with a few button pushes, they can in combat quickly and in a matter of moments, switch ammunition types to suit the combat situation.

Yes, you're right, that is totally unbelievable.

I have no intention of limiting your method of expression.  In fact I
need you to be expressive on how an ammo power is MORE believable than a
weapon mod.  I'm asking a specific question, and you are failing to answer it.  But let's see what you've come up with this time.

You've tried, repeatedly, to limit the discussion away from why your point on button pushing is silly, to set aside any examination of why we should look at how ME2 handles all powers and get a context for how it handles ammo powers.  So yes, you are in fact trying to limit methods of expression.  Not overtly by force, because this is the Internet and that would be ridiculous.  But by the way of the Internet critic, by pretending that the point is stupid, and that if the speaker was smart and savvy - like you - they would drop it, and inviting intelligent and sophisticated readers to agree with you, and distance themselves from cretins by doing so.

I've repeatedly answered your question on this topic.

Considering this is 1) the same thing they do in ME1, 2) nothing to do with weapons, I fail to see the point you're making.

It has everything to do with ammo powers, because you're saying, "It's silly that you can do something to ammunition just by pushing buttons."  Why is it silly that you can do something in ME2 just by pushing buttons?  You can do other much more complicated tasks in ME2 by pushing buttons!

Okay.  Please explain to me how pushing a few things on their
weapons -- which are a pre-arranged series of commands -- make them
shoot fire bullets, anti-shield bullets, etc.

I have, repeatedly.  This will be at least the third time now.  One very simple explanation is that experienced weapons specialists use their knowledge and training to switch between modifications - that magic word - they've done on their weapons to go from, say, inferno ammunition and heavy disruptor ammunition at the push of a few buttons.  For someone who lays such a smug claim to criticism, you certainly suffer from a lack of both basic reading comprehension and imagination.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Whether it's less believeable or not is irrelevant. They couldn't have weapon/ammo mods in this game since they eliminated the ridiculously cumbersome inventory system, and they wanted to retain the ammo types used in the previous game, which we all partook of.

Hence: Ammo Powers.

Even it's not believable or explained properly, it's a compromise. Would you rather we not have special ammo at ALL? And don't argue that we could have ammo mods, remember, ME2 did not allow nor have mods. The only "mods" we have are the upgrades we purchase or find.

Once again, you're arguing that a gameplay mechanic doesn't conform to the story or setting, when it doesn't have to.

No, I'm arguing based on this:
http://social.biowar...1292/13#4961591

Yeah, that sounds much less realistic.

...Which is arguing the realism of a gameplay mechanic in a game where the previous system is no longer an option.

[Anglerfish]

Is it acceptable that pushing a few buttons on an omnitool allows you to hack incredibly complicated AIs, shock nervous systems, drop shields, etc.? Yes. There's no problem with that, because obviously these highly skilled specialists aren't just pushing a few buttons. They've prepared their tools for combat so that when they 'push a few buttons', they're doing more than just pushing a few buttons but actually executing a complex series of commands.

So what are the weapon-specialized characters doing with their ammo powers when they 'push a few buttons'? Are they just, by magic, making ammunition into fire? Obviously not. They're - exactly like Tali - executing a pre-arranged series of commands on their weapons, and when the powers are squad powers, on their squad's weapons.

I'm sorry, how exactly does a software package produce tungsten or inferno ammunition? Hacking makes sense because you could easily have a mutating malicious software program designed to crack into enemy electronic systems and delete the friendly fire protocols, but one cannot exactly coat their ammunition in a layer of fiery, explosive, armour piercing or shield-disrupting software programs any more than one can program themselves a third arm. Hell, if ammunition powers were feasible, why not extend the technology to give me a dozen directed-energy weapons held in virtual limbs? I think it would make me a much more effective combat machine.

armory with minifacturing capability. What do you think he does in there, just sit-ups?

What's 'minifacturing'?

Anyway, in my opinion, the only ammunition power that makes sense is warp ammo, because the in-game description states that [Jack] focuses her biotic abilities on enhancing the ammunition loaded into her weapon - which is acceptable in the ME world. However, no other ammunition types are established and maintained through biotics; their in-game descriptions imply that physically different ammunition types are being loaded into the weapon in the same way as they were in ME1. Examples:

Heavy disruptor ammo: this ammunition's electromagnetic properties can cause synthetics to critically overload and explode.

Tungsten ammo: advanced tungsten carbide rounds in discarding sabots increase the damage done by armor piercing ammo.

These descriptions both make reference to physical properties that could not possibly be established through software and, technically, not even through biotics; furthermore, they imply that a different ammunition has been loaded into the weapon, which is exactly the same principle as ME1 ammunition modifications.

Except, for some unknown reason, only specific people can utilise specific ammunition types. Since absolutely no expertise can be involved in loading a clip of different ammunition, and since weapons are shared between squad members [why wouldn't they share ammo?] we must conclude that the ammo power system has been put in place for the sole purpose of streamlining the gameplay.

BioWare wanted to make combat swift and they wanted to minimise the level of tweaking in between combat situations. They wanted to do away with the truer-to-RPG system of modifying - and buying more advanced versions of - weapons. They also wanted to place more importance on the other squad members; in ME1, your squad was there to draw enemy fire; if you were a powerful enough biotic or if you had immunity and a sniper rifle, you had absolutely no reason to spare your squad a second thought. They could be useful, of course, but they were not necessary.

In ME2, though one can still go it alone quite effectively, it is far more efficient to put your squad members to good use. BioWare made sure of that by only allowing you to launch one power at a time [making squad members with useful powers invaluable] and by enabling squad members like Miranda to enhance every other member of the squad. Ammo powers are just another way of enhancing the squad. Someone like Legion could really use armour piercing ammunition to make full use of his Widow sniper rifle, but he cannot access it - unless you evolve Garrus's [or your] ammo power, giving it to the entire squad. Ammo powers become a way of ensuring full use of the squad.

It is part of the new tactical system that, in my opinion, is a vast improvement on ME1's simple combat system. Of course, ammo powers are far from realistic - they are either software programs [absurd] or they are clips of physical ammunition that only one person may use without evolving the power - also absurd. But it did not detract from my enjoyment of the gameplay, so it's fine with me. I would prefer a return to the ME1 weapon modification system, though.

Modifié par Anglerfish, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:03 .

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...

smudboy wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

...Whether it's less believeable or not is irrelevant. They couldn't have weapon/ammo mods in this game since they eliminated the ridiculously cumbersome inventory system, and they wanted to retain the ammo types used in the previous game, which we all partook of.

Hence: Ammo Powers.

Even it's not believable or explained properly, it's a compromise. Would you rather we not have special ammo at ALL? And don't argue that we could have ammo mods, remember, ME2 did not allow nor have mods. The only "mods" we have are the upgrades we purchase or find.

Once again, you're arguing that a gameplay mechanic doesn't conform to the story or setting, when it doesn't have to.

No, I'm arguing based on this:
http://social.biowar...1292/13#4961591

Yeah, that sounds much less realistic.

...Which is arguing the realism of a gameplay mechanic in a game where the previous system is no longer an option.

Hey, he said it.  I'm trying to understand what he means.

[Turin_4]

Anglerfish,

As to minifacturing:

The development of practical minifacturing omni-tools
allows modern militaries a great deal of flexibility in equipment
load-outs. A vast number of field modification kits, or "upgrades", are
available for common equipment such as weapons, armor, omni-tools, biotic amps, and even grenades.
An upgrade kit typically consists of less than a dozen unique
parts and an optical storage disc. When loaded into an omni-tool, the OSD
provides all technical specifications required to manufacture the tool
and additional parts necessary to install the upgrade onto another piece
of equipment. Assembly is typically modular, and installation can be
completed in less than a minute.
Since omni-tools are designed to use common battlefield salvage
materials such as plastics, ceramics, and light materials (rendered into
semi-molten "omni-gel"
for quick use), it is quite possible for a trained soldier carrying
upgrade kits to customize gear on the battlefield to fit the current
tactical situation.

Taken from the codex on www.masseffect.wikia.com .  I'm not suggesting it's a software package.  I'm suggesting it's a software package that accesses hardware.  Unless you really think the developers are just so foolish they need, well, the brilliant smudboy to correct them.  Flattering to vanity, yes.  Likely, not in the least.

Except, for some unknown reason, only specific people can utilise
specific ammunition types. Since absolutely no expertise can be involved
in loading a clip of different ammunition, and since weapons are shared
between squad members [why wouldn't they share ammo?] we must conclude
that the ammo power system has been put in place for the sole purpose of
streamlining the gameplay.

First, in the ME world, you never loaded different kinds of clips of ammunition.  Second, does it make perfect continuity sense?  No!  Is that necessary?  The answer is also no.  There's a little tiny pothole.  Big whoop.

It is part of the new tactical system that, in my opinion, is a vast
improvement on ME1's simple combat system. Of course, ammo powers are
far from realistic - they are either software programs [absurd] or they
are clips of physical ammunition that only one person may use without
evolving the power - also absurd. But it did not detract from my
enjoyment of the gameplay, so it's fine with me. I would prefer a return
to the ME1 system, though.

Look at the explanation that I provided above-that they're software interfacing that pre-installed hardware that is activated or switched by a few button pushes in combat.  Is that really so absurd?  And then ask yourself, in terms of plausibility, is that really that much more implausible than being able to, y'know, stop time whenever you like and switch out?  Or is it just that we're all perfectly comfortable with the convention of the pause button and no longer question it?

[Moiaussi]

Turin_4 wrote...

Taken from the codex on www.masseffect.wikia.com .  I'm not suggesting it's a software package.  I'm suggesting it's a software package that accesses hardware.  Unless you really think the developers are just so foolish they need, well, the brilliant smudboy to correct them.  Flattering to vanity, yes.  Likely, not in the least.

So you are suggesting that weapons are just reprogramable lumps of omnigel? Interesting theory and actually a potentially valid arguement. If so, though, shouldn't we be able to disarm opponents simply by hacking their weapons into plowshares? And is it still a valid arguement since the whole 'conversion to omni gel' seems to have been retconned away?

First, in the ME world, you never loaded different kinds of clips of ammunition.  Second, does it make perfect continuity sense?  No!  Is that necessary?  The answer is also no.  There's a little tiny pothole.  Big whoop.

No, but you loaded modules that had the same effect. You are right about neccessity. Technically no continuity at all is neccessary. They could have reconned Shepard into Mr Tubblesnortz and still had a playable  (and sellable) game. That does not mean it would have been a better game though.

Look at the explanation that I provided above-that they're software interfacing that pre-installed hardware that is activated or switched by a few button pushes in combat.  Is that really so absurd?  And then ask yourself, in terms of plausibility, is that really that much more implausible than being able to, y'know, stop time whenever you like and switch out?  Or is it just that we're all perfectly comfortable with the convention of the pause button and no longer question it?

Yes, because there is no reason to believe that someone else couldn't have pre-installed that hardware. That is very different from hacking (where you the button pushing could be in response to monitoring the effects of the hacking attempt), or overload (where you are configuring the charge based on field analysis of the enemy shields), or biotics, where it is a ruddy innate ability.

[Lumikki]

Turin_4 wrote...

1. Weapons has physical ammo limits. You could change you ammo
abilities just by "software", it doesn't seem so believable. More like
it would require you actually need to change them physically. You can't
make by software ammos to cyro or explosive. It would require that every
weapon has some new feature, like some addional tank for these
elements. And everytime you fire weapon the ammo would need to be build
inside the weapons. Yes, You can invent some explanation, but it isn't
believable. More reasonable and easyer explanation would be that player
choose ammo clips when going to missions.

In the ME universe, there really is no functional ammunition limit.  The clips you have aren't actually ammunition in ME2.

Of cause there is, physical material doesn't just come from nothing, it has weight and guns have also they weight. You can't carry unlimited amount of ammo material. Without physical material you can't have ammos, you would have laser or energy weapon. You can't go pass mass energy relation laws. E = mc^2

And if that had suddenly been limited to being done on ship
I wouldn't have the same complaints. But I am not complaining about
that. I am complaining about ammunition choices, which are a much more
reasonable subset of that. Straw man. You are exaggerating my arguement
into something it is not (again) to pretend you can shoot it down
easily.

No.  You and smudboy are complaining that it's ridiculous that you can 'just push a few buttons to modify ammunition', among other things.  It's not.  For the reasons I've explained.  If it's not ridiculous that you can hack AIs or overload shields with a button push, because of course that would require complicated prearranged tasks in place to accomplish, then it's not ridiculous that you could accomplish modifying ammunition with pre-set weapons when you've got a highly specialized armory either.

If you look situation like physical material has not weight or size, then yes what you say is possible. How ever, all materials have weight and size too. In ammunition damage done to target is often very much related amount of physical material ammo has.  My point is that making multible action is fine even how complicated they are, you right there, but you can't ignore physical material limits what is also required. To shoot anythign you ammo need physical material and different kind of materials for different kind of ammos.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:13 .

[smudboy]

Turin_4 wrote...
Of course it is.  In ME1, you looked favorably on a gameplay convention-namely, magically being able to stop time and carry around what amounted to limitless weapons, armor, and mods to ammunition and armor and weapons, and to be able to switch them in and out in any conditions instantly.  Even if - I think, but I'm not sure - you were under fire.  This was somehow 'more believable'.

But you're completely overlooking that gameplay convention.  You're talking as though you're not even considering gameplay conventions, discussing things only in terms of plausibility now, when that is self-evidently not the case.  What's true is that you're only discussing the gameplay conventions you want to discuss, which is quite different.

This is not about game play convention.  This has nothing to do with the argument.

I believe that an ammo power is actually an ammo mod.  I've explained that repeatedly now.  You cannot possibly have missed it.  I believe an ammunition power is actually a weapon specialist using their years of training and knowledge to trick out their weapons in the armory with the assistance of Jacob, EDI, and minifacturing to the point where, with a few button pushes, they can in combat quickly and in a matter of moments, switch ammunition types to suit the combat situation.

Yes, I totally missed this.  This is because your reasoning is jumping all over, using examples of other game play mechanics that have no bearing on this discussion.  You've also, just here, changed your opinion.

So if ammo powers = weapon mod, how can you possibly say, that ammo powers are MORE believable than weapon mods, when you're NOW TELLING ME, they are in fact, the same thing?

Modifié par smudboy, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:03 .

[Moiaussi]

Lumikki wrote...

Of cause there is, physical material doesn't just come from nothing, it has weight and guns have also they weight. You can't carry unlimited amount of ammo material. Without physical material you can't have ammos, you would have laser or energy weapon.

It isn't so much that the guns have infinite ammunition. It is that the ammunition is so small that they functionally have unlimited ammunition. Like it or not that is the lore.