1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

I is now corn-fused.

[Wittand25]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
hence being perfectly capable of holding in atmosphere (you know - being as atmosphere is comprised of small objects travelling at rapid velocities - molecules). you even see an obvious one on the normandy at the end of the game. if you are going to nit-pick, at least pick something you can win at because looking like fools can seriously damage the credibility of all your arguments.

If the shields are airthight, why don´t the characters suffocate shortly after putting their shields up? Anyone trying to breath inside would use up the oxigen rather fast unless the field extends quite far from the body. Not to mention that the shields then also need to be able to vibrate in order for sound to travel from the inside of the shields to the outside and vice versa.

oh dear - seriously think first before replying. if you can create a force-field/barrier, then of course you could vary how strong it is - personal kinetic barriers to stop weapons, but area barriers to stop atmosphere leakage, it's not a hard concept - hell we can already generate magnetic fields to do the atmosphere effect and BAE is working on the other one...

So the squadmates, lets call it armor, contains: two different set of shieldgenerators, energiestorage for those, an oxigensupply and an unlimit supply of heat sinks. And all that with beeing not thicker than a common diver´s suit, I must say I am impressed.
Area shields don´t really work as part of armor, apart from making the biotic bubble in the suicide mission pointless, the energy needed to maintain such a field would be simply too much to carry around because unlike the combat shields who only get up if you are hit, the enviroment shields would need to be up all the time. Also everybody inside such a shield would be extremly vunerable to any sort of weapon whose funktion is use up oxigen like sulfur- or phospor-grenades.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
hence being perfectly capable of holding in atmosphere (you know - being as atmosphere is comprised of small objects travelling at rapid velocities - molecules). you even see an obvious one on the normandy at the end of the game. if you are going to nit-pick, at least pick something you can win at because looking like fools can seriously damage the credibility of all your arguments.

If the shields are airthight, why don´t the characters suffocate shortly after putting their shields up? Anyone trying to breath inside would use up the oxigen rather fast unless the field extends quite far from the body. Not to mention that the shields then also need to be able to vibrate in order for sound to travel from the inside of the shields to the outside and vice versa.

oh dear - seriously think first before replying. if you can create a force-field/barrier, then of course you could vary how strong it is - personal kinetic barriers to stop weapons, but area barriers to stop atmosphere leakage, it's not a hard concept - hell we can already generate electromagnetic fields to do the atmosphere effect and BAE is working on the other one...

Except that's not how it works in the lore. If anybody is the fool it's you if you honestly think that they can work like that given how they're designed. They're basically the same as the Goa'uld shields from the Stargate series. They're not going to stop air molecules and hold in an atmosphere. And even then that's not the main issue, which are things like pressure, temperature, radiation, toxic and other dangerous atmopsheres, etc. which the lore specifically states as not being stopped or affected by the barriers. If toxic gas can get in, then air can too.

[morrie23]

For the benefit of Jebel:



"Kinetic barriers, colloquially called "shields", provide protection against most mass accelerator weapons. Whether on a starship or a soldier's suit of armor, the basic principle remains the same.



Kinetic barriers are repulsive mass effect fields projected from tiny emitters. These shields safely deflect small objects traveling at rapid velocities. This affords protection from bullets and other dangerous projectiles, but still allows the user to sit down without knocking away their chair.



The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation."



From the ME Codex. Can't argue with that.

[Nightwriter]

This seems like a very silly thing to argue about.

ME1's lore clearly states that barriers can't keep out toxins or radiation, so I'd think they can't keep in oxygen.

Yet ME2 begins with us seeing that the Normandy's cockpit atmosphere is being protected somehow by a kinetic barrier.

If you ask me the game can't really decide what the hell it wants barriers to be capable of. Can't we talk about how frustratingly unsatisfying it was the way they handled the Council's idiocy relapse as a shameless plot device?

[Pocketgb]

Nightwriter wrote...

I never get used to how broad the topics of disappointments in this thread are.

ME1 was held in very high regard, for good reason, by many a player. Changing one thing from the prequel to the sequel - for good or worse - is bound to upset someone.

Now what would be great to know - impossible to calculate - is the actual percentage of displeased players. For some, a large amount of discontent voiced on the boards can be considered an indication of your game being a success. That's largely why I avoid posts like "QFT" or "well said, quoting so everyone sees it again!": It's because it clogs up other people attempting to lay their point across.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 octobre 2010 - 09:58 .

[Nightwriter]

I suppose displeasure depends upon expectation. For instance, I expected a story.

[Pocketgb]

Nightwriter wrote...

I suppose displeasure depends upon expectation. For instance, I expected a story.

While I would've appreciated a better story, Bioware always one me over with their party members. I love all of them in Mass Effect 2 (even Jacob! I loved the bro moments!)

Of course, they're nowhere near the depth of DA's (even *with* the gift system), but neither were ME1's, really. Especially compared to Bioware's previous companions the squadmates of the ME universe have always felt shallow and straightforward, but I think that's the point.

[Jebel Krong]

morrie23 wrote...

For the benefit of Jebel:

"Kinetic barriers, colloquially called "shields", provide protection against most mass accelerator weapons. Whether on a starship or a soldier's suit of armor, the basic principle remains the same.

Kinetic barriers are repulsive mass effect fields projected from tiny emitters. These shields safely deflect small objects traveling at rapid velocities. This affords protection from bullets and other dangerous projectiles, but still allows the user to sit down without knocking away their chair.

The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation."

From the ME Codex. Can't argue with that.

if you knew anything about science, you'd know that in a vacuum you don't lose heat, you are unlikely to come into contact with toxins and you'd have to be sufficiently close to a star for radiation to be a significant problem (in most cases) so how does that affect barriers containing an atmosphere? - that's right it doesn't.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

Wittand25 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...
hence being perfectly capable of holding in atmosphere (you know - being as atmosphere is comprised of small objects travelling at rapid velocities - molecules). you even see an obvious one on the normandy at the end of the game. if you are going to nit-pick, at least pick something you can win at because looking like fools can seriously damage the credibility of all your arguments.

If the shields are airthight, why don´t the characters suffocate shortly after putting their shields up? Anyone trying to breath inside would use up the oxigen rather fast unless the field extends quite far from the body. Not to mention that the shields then also need to be able to vibrate in order for sound to travel from the inside of the shields to the outside and vice versa.

oh dear - seriously think first before replying. if you can create a force-field/barrier, then of course you could vary how strong it is - personal kinetic barriers to stop weapons, but area barriers to stop atmosphere leakage, it's not a hard concept - hell we can already generate electromagnetic fields to do the atmosphere effect and BAE is working on the other one...

Except that's not how it works in the lore. If anybody is the fool it's you if you honestly think that they can work like that given how they're designed. They're basically the same as the Goa'uld shields from the Stargate series. They're not going to stop air molecules and hold in an atmosphere. And even then that's not the main issue, which are things like pressure, temperature, radiation, toxic and other dangerous atmopsheres, etc. which the lore specifically states as not being stopped or affected by the barriers. If toxic gas can get in, then air can too.

if that was entirely the case then anyone in the normandy hold would be dead. except in the cut-scene they aren't, obviously. and you said they were like crappy stargate science, not the game, nor the codex. i am merely extrapolating known real-science with what's presented in-game (bot by codex, which doesn't explicitly rule it out, as stated) and visibly in cut-scenes and the game itself.

[Terror_K]

Nightwriter wrote...

This seems like a very silly thing to argue about.

ME1's lore clearly states that barriers can't keep out toxins or radiation, so I'd think they can't keep in oxygen.

Yet ME2 begins with us seeing that the Normandy's cockpit atmosphere is being protected somehow by a kinetic barrier.

If you ask me the game can't really decide what the hell it wants barriers to be capable of.

Hardly surprising. ME2 seems to ****** on ME1's credibility quite a lot throughout the game and contradict things, as well as coming across as farcial and overly "modern Hollywood" where it sacrifices substance for style.

The thing is I'm not exactly sure what it was keeping in, since Shepard and Joker were both wearing helmets anyway, but Joker was admittedly more exposed from the neck down. I suspect they couldn't think of another way of having the cool "walk to the cockpit" part and logically have Joker still be okay in the front, since there are no bulkhead doors or anything between him and the rest of it. They probably simply hoped most people would be caught up in the moment and simply not care or realise. Doesn't quite work when you have squaddies running around in standard clothing later on with only breathing masks to protect them and somehow getting all the benefits from kinetic barriers and armour medi-gel dispensers without actually wearing armour.

About the only time I think ME1 got close to breaking my brain with retarded stupidity was the idea of omni-gel just being this thing you could spread on anything to open it up, but I'd always surmised that even then there was more to it than that and the boring specifics of how it did it were simply glossed over entirely. With ME2 on the other hand it's like the team just stopped caring about their own universe suddenly and went all Michael Bay on us.

Can't we talk about how frustratingly unsatisfying it was the way they handled the Council's idiocy relapse as a shameless plot device?

You mean how at the end of ME1 they're all "we're sorry Shepard, the evidence is clear and we both believe and support you" to in ME2 being once again "Aaah yes... Reapers. We have dismissed this claim. Also, y'know how when you became a Spectre it seemed like a big deal? Yeah... not so much."

[Mox Ruuga]

Nightwriter wrote...
Can't we talk about how frustratingly unsatisfying it was the way they handled the Council's idiocy relapse as a shameless plot device?

Didn't a Bioware dev actually agree with us, that the whole thing felt silly? It was on one of the first "complaint" threads right after release...

[Jebel Krong]

perhaps some people would like to look up the differences between particles and waves before continuing their stupid arguments against science.

also wittand25, i have no idea what you said in your last post, it wasn't particularly comprehensible, but atmospheric barriers i wasn't talking about aren't on the suits - other wise they wouldn't be wearing breathers/masks in those areas (normandy at the beginning, collectorship/reaper).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:19 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

if you knew anything about science, you'd know that in a vacuum you don't lose heat, you are unlikely to come into contact with toxins and you'd have to be sufficiently close to a star for radiation to be a significant problem (in most cases) so how does that affect barriers containing an atmosphere? - that's right it doesn't.

Except that the barriers don't actually create a vacuum around you at all. Saying what they could do if you changed them to something else entirely and what they actually do is two completely different things.

[Nightwriter]

Pocketgb wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I suppose displeasure depends upon expectation. For instance, I expected a story.

While I would've appreciated a better story, Bioware always one me over with their party members. I love all of them in Mass Effect 2 (even Jacob! I loved the bro moments!)

Of course, they're nowhere near the depth of DA's (even *with* the gift system), but neither were ME1's, really. Especially compared to Bioware's previous companions the squadmates of the ME universe have always felt shallow and straightforward, but I think that's the point.

I love the characters, and it is because of the characters that I so criticize the story.

Characters need a story. Without a story they're just there. ME2's characters had no real plot purpose or story connection, they were all pieces of flotsam.

Their loyalty missions were great but had no outside value beside a simple game mechanic. I doubt they'll ever be mentioned outside of ME2.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

if you knew anything about science, you'd know that in a vacuum you don't lose heat, you are unlikely to come into contact with toxins and you'd have to be sufficiently close to a star for radiation to be a significant problem (in most cases) so how does that affect barriers containing an atmosphere? - that's right it doesn't.

Except that the barriers don't actually create a vacuum around you at all. Saying what they could do if you changed them to something else entirely and what they actually do is two completely different things.

i did not say that - the vacuum is on the outside of the ship... duh.  (and in the case of the reaper, it was at the edge of the gas giant's atmosphere, not in straight vacuum).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Nightwriter]

AND COULD WE STOP TALKING ABOUT BARRIERS.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Can't we talk about how frustratingly unsatisfying it was the way they handled the Council's idiocy relapse as a shameless plot device?

Didn't a Bioware dev actually agree with us, that the whole thing felt silly? It was on one of the first "complaint" threads right after release...

I would really, really like to see where this was said. If they acknowledge that stuff like this was very badly done, perhaps they can make sure to not use poorly done plot devices in the future.

[Pocketgb]

Nightwriter wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I suppose displeasure depends upon expectation. For instance, I expected a story.

While I would've appreciated a better story, Bioware always one me over with their party members. I love all of them in Mass Effect 2 (even Jacob! I loved the bro moments!)

Of course, they're nowhere near the depth of DA's (even *with* the gift system), but neither were ME1's, really. Especially compared to Bioware's previous companions the squadmates of the ME universe have always felt shallow and straightforward, but I think that's the point.

I love the characters, and it is because of the characters that I so criticize the story.

Characters need a story. Without a story they're just there. ME2's characters had no real plot purpose or story connection, they were all pieces of flotsam.

Their loyalty missions were great but had no outside value beside a simple game mechanic. I doubt they'll ever be mentioned outside of ME2.

Some connection is better than no connection, eh? ME2's 'recruitments' had little going for them sans "they're useful". While I saw little depth in how squaddies in ME1 were related to the plot, I still sympathize.

I mainly just found it refreshing to see Bioware change the way they usually structure the game. While it's still the KotOR method it's still a change, and while it wasn't amazing it's good to see something different every now and then.

Nightwriter wrote...

AND COULD WE STOP TALKING ABOUT BARRIERS.

I gave up backseat modding a loooong time ago on these forums...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:16 .

[morrie23]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
I would really, really like to see where this was said. If they acknowledge that stuff like this was very badly done, perhaps they can make sure to not use poorly done plot devices in the future.

He's what the dev said:

Thomas_R_Roy wrote...
I have to agree with the OP, that bugged me. Obviously the writers are cool talented dudes but I don't think that part makes any sense... like doesn't Shepard have a Polaroid camera or something? Sensor logs on the
normandy? Carbon-dating on the wreckage of Sovereign? I thought it was kind of laughable.

And as for the theories that the council does know and is covering it up... sure, that's possible, but that makes them either stupid or evil, and then shouldn't Shepard sorta see that? As it is, Shepard looks stupid for accepting it.

And

Thomas_R_Roy wrote...
Wynne:

Actually I did have a discussion with the writer (Mac  Walters) about this topic. And he explained his view, and ultimately decided that he preferred leaving it the same. And that's his job, as a writer, to pick what he thinks is best, so I don't have any problem with it.

And so I definitely am not implying the writers don't listen! They definitely do.

As for the Council being evil or stupid - Udina is maliciously stupid, and that's clearly portrayed, but if that's true of the Council also, its not portrayed strongly enough. I have a tendency to guess that the  rulers of a successful peaceful galaxy are probably reasonably intelligent and good.

As for some of the cynicism of politicians, I don't buy it. Politicians aren't all bad. Hell, I've known some.

Oh yeah and to the guy that said I could learn a bit of politics from his post - you know nothing about my level of education. And what you wrote is pretty flimsy. I don't think you've done a very good job of teaching "politics." I learned more in PolySci 101.

Thread linky

Edited for formating

Modifié par morrie23, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:26 .

[Wittand25]

My biggest dissapointment was that although they said ME2 was about building a team,but that was not true.

ME2 was about recruiting a buch of powerful individuals during individual missions, talk to them in seperate rooms on board of the ship, and do their individual loyality missions.

You never have a team you just have a group of powerful individuals who barely even register the existance of other teammembers. Combined with the lacking main storyline this made ME2 a far weaker expirience than it could have been.

[Nightwriter]

Pocketgb wrote...

Some connection is better than no connection, eh? ME2's 'recruitments' had little going for them sans "they're useful". While I saw little depth in how squaddies in ME1 were related to the plot, I still sympathize.

I mainly just found it refreshing to see Bioware change the way they usually structure the game. While it's still the KotOR method it's still a change, and while it wasn't amazing it's good to see something different every now and then.

I admit that it is a bit of a pet peeve of mine (I can't help it) the way some people keep saying the game was "refreshing".

I just feel like this game was a huge disappointment in some ways, and then people say it's okay and they liked it just because it was... different. It's very frustrating. >_<

But yes, I agree. It was different. It did break the pattern. However I liked ME1's way of recruiting squaddies better. While they weren't necessarily essential, you weren't actually looking for them, which made it a lot better.

Pocketgb wrote...

I gave up backseat modding a loooong time ago on these forums...

That wasn't backseat modding, that was begging.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:28 .

[Terror_K]

Re: The Council in ME2-- I think the best explanation would be that they don't want to cause worry, fear and panic throughout the galaxy and perhaps think it's best that as far as The Reapers go they're still largely an unknown. Look at Babylon 5 --already a clear inspiration for ME-- when Sheridan, Delenn and co. knew about The Shadows but chose to keep it secret to not only stop fear spreading throughout the galaxy but to make The Shadows think they're presence wasn't common knowledge. It's a perfectly good reason for it.



Still, that said, if that were the case it should have been explained more rather than not. As it stands The Council does either look stupid, ignorant or evil, as as corrupt as they may be in some ways, overall they're still supposed to be the good guys and looking out for those in their domain.

[Gibb_Shepard]

morrie23 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
I would really, really like to see where this was said. If they acknowledge that stuff like this was very badly done, perhaps they can make sure to not use poorly done plot devices in the future.

He's what the dev said:

Thomas_R_Roy wrote...
I have to agree with the OP, that bugged me. Obviously the writers are cool talented dudes but I don't think that part makes any sense... like doesn't Shepard have a Polaroid camera or something? Sensor logs on the
normandy? Carbon-dating on the wreckage of Sovereign? I thought it was kind of laughable.

And as for the theories that the council does know and is covering it up... sure, that's possible, but that makes them either stupid or evil, and then shouldn't Shepard sorta see that? As it is, Shepard looks stupid for accepting it.

And

Thomas_R_Roy wrote...
Wynne:

Actually I did have a discussion with the writer (Mac  Walters) about this topic. And he explained his view, and ultimately decided that he preferred leaving it the same. And that's his job, as a writer, to pick what he thinks is best, so I don't have any problem with it.

And so I definitely am not implying the writers don't listen! They definitely do.

As for the Council being evil or stupid - Udina is maliciously stupid, and that's clearly portrayed, but if that's true of the Council also, its not portrayed strongly enough. I have a tendency to guess that the  rulers of a successful peaceful galaxy are probably reasonably intelligent and good.

As for some of the cynicism of politicians, I don't buy it. Politicians aren't all bad. Hell, I've known some.

Oh yeah and to the guy that said I could learn a bit of politics from his post - you know nothing about my level of education. And what you wrote is pretty flimsy. I don't think you've done a very good job of teaching "politics." I learned more in PolySci 101.

Thread linky

Edited for formating

Thanks a lot for that. I wonder what Mac's point of view was, because i can't see a pov that explains this plot device well, other than the council's utter stupidity, which i prefer not to think of them as.

[Nightwriter]

Terror_K wrote...

Re: The Council in ME2-- I think the best explanation would be that they don't want to cause worry, fear and panic throughout the galaxy and perhaps think it's best that as far as The Reapers go they're still largely an unknown. Look at Babylon 5 --already a clear inspiration for ME-- when Sheridan, Delenn and co. knew about The Shadows but chose to keep it secret to not only stop fear spreading throughout the galaxy but to make The Shadows think they're presence wasn't common knowledge. It's a perfectly good reason for it.

Still, that said, if that were the case it should have been explained more rather than not. As it stands The Council does either look stupid, ignorant or evil, as as corrupt as they may be in some ways, overall they're still supposed to be the good guys and looking out for those in their domain.

Right. I've never seen Babylon 5, but it sounds like the difference is the audience was exposed to the rationale then. We are not exposed to any such rationale with the Council, so we are detecting the strong whiff of bad writing.