Saibh wrote...
You know, I'm all in favor of a toggle for this, but, damn, some of you people take it to the next level. You'd think this toggle is all that stands between us and Armageddon. If I really want to see my character's head, I won't wear a helmet. I'd simply prefer the bonuses in battle anyway. It's sort of a selfish request, don't you think? It's not like we have any word on whether the helmet's are cemented on, like DLC armor in ME2.
I really don't think any request is selfish; we are consumers and our opinions our important, or at least they should be.
I think the distinction to be made is the one between reasonable and unreasonable requests, and then even further between irrationally unreasonable and rationally unreasonable requests.
Just the other day, for instance, someone was asking BioWare to translate all of the voiced dialog into Portuguese. Although this is an unreasonable request, as recording all of the dialog in English is a monumental task in and of itself, it was requested rationally and from an unmalicious place. Asking BioWare to add Dwarves and Elves as playable races in a veiled accusation of "selling out," as I think many of us have seen here before, is both an unreasonable request as well as one that is made irrationally.
I believe this request is both reasonable as well as rational. It is reasonable because the desired effect has been achieved through a simple* mod, and the concept has been presented rationally in this thread at least once, despite the fanatics on both sides.
* The No Helmet Hack is a comparatively simple mod to, say, The Winter Forge. When I say "simple," I mean the following:
1. The scope of the mod is small. It does one task.
2. The code required is small, mostly because it uses somewhat of a hack, placing the item in a slot already coded by BioWare to be hidden automatically.
3. The propensity for error is small. This is due mostly to #1.
Warning: Useless Digression Ahead
To address the topic of the necessity to "test" content, the leading defense used against player suggestions, there are three types of fundamental programming errors: syntax, runtime, and logic. Syntax errors are errors of grammar, and are marked as incorrect in most editors (squiggly lines beneath them like in MS Word) and, even if not, a detailed error message is displayed when the program is compiled. These are the easiest errors to fix; trivial, if tedious.
Runtime errors occur during runtime, that is when the program itself is running. For instance, if the program accepts integers from the user and divides the two, and the user inputs a 0 for the denominator (and the programmer has not taken this into account), then that would be a runtime error. To generalize, runtime errors are errors within the circumstance of the program/machine which were, at the time of coding, outside of the programmer's intuition/foresight. These are more difficult to spot, but through trial and error they can be weeded out (e.g., "when I try to open this specific door, the game crashes").
The most difficult to spot and to fix, however, are logic errors. These are subtle errors within the program's algorithm; there is nothing visually wrong with the code, and no error message will be displayed. Still, the program does not work correctly. You input "two times two" and you get "South Dakota" spit back at you, and you have no idea why. Some function (maybe even one line of code within that function) was written incorrectly, and whatever it is outputting is being sent to another function, which sends its now-incorrect output to another function, and so on and so forth.
Tricky though these may be to fix, by definition they are less of a hassle (even less of a possibility) the smaller a program gets: if you only have three lines of code to deal with, chances are you can track down where the error is if it even exists. Hence, because the No Helmet Hack is so small, there is not much of a chance that it would be a hassle to debug if necessary, and thus the overhead of testing is lessened for such a feature as opposed to others. And yes, this argument works in direct contrast to my wish for NG+, which would be significantly more difficult to create, test, and debug (though not so much to be not worth it!).
Modifié par Maverick827, 19 octobre 2010 - 05:47 .
those that do use it will have to pay for its power by looking at a bird on their head for 30 hours.
Retour en haut
This. Or at least make it super-easy to mod out underwear in key scenes, if you guys insist on characters keeping their clothes *on* in those intimate moments. 
