278 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

Actually, if explained right, it wouldn't necessarily be against the laws of physics. And as I said before, as techbology advances so do the outdated codex entries (just like textbooks). Anyways, this may seem like a bit of a stretch but work with me. Light behaves as particles in some instances and as waves in others. If they could somehow control it to behave as a bunch of particles when it comes into contact with an object and to behave as waves when it isn't in use, then it could potentially be workable. As this is a science-fiction game, certainly that could work as a possible explanation. People like to take things too seriously. I mean really it's a game. That's like criticizing pokemon because animals don't actually evolve that quickly and they physically can't fit into small capsules. Honestly it's not meant to be practical, it's meant to be entertaining with a pretty faulty explanation. Seriously, people it's JUST a sword. Arguably it could use the same technology as a lightsabre anyways and I don't see many complaints about Star Wars because the lightsabre isn't realistic enough.

Actually, a lightsaber isn't completaly crazy. If a receptor was put in the end to catch the beam, it would look like a sword.

Pokeballs on the other hand.... kidding.

As for the Omni-Blade. Yes, it's a game, but what some people feel is betrayed. ME1 was known for explaining everything and it's realistic feel.

ME2 killed it all with the Lazarus Project and the lack of info for it (seriously, couldn't they make something up!?) and ME3 with the Omni-Blade that outright ****s all over the codex.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Like I said earlier, if you can freeze, incinerate, and create your own battle drone with a holographic omni tool than why not a blade.... It is the swiss army knife of the late 22nd century folks.

It "manufactures" those things, though. Bioware's line so far regarding the omniblade is that it's actually a HOLOGRAM that uses "hard light".

My question is why did they go with that explanation, when they could have easily stuck to established lore by saying, "It makes blades out of omni-gel and suspends/rotates them using precisely-aligned magnetic fields." It's kind of bewildering when such a simple explanation is passed over for such a non-sensical one (as it relates to established lore).

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Actually, if explained right, it wouldn't necessarily be against the laws of physics. And as I said before, as techbology advances so do the outdated codex entries (just like textbooks). Anyways, this may seem like a bit of a stretch but work with me. Light behaves as particles in some instances and as waves in others. If they could somehow control it to behave as a bunch of particles when it comes into contact with an object and to behave as waves when it isn't in use, then it could potentially be workable. As this is a science-fiction game, certainly that could work as a possible explanation. People like to take things too seriously. I mean really it's a game. That's like criticizing pokemon because animals don't actually evolve that quickly and they physically can't fit into small capsules. Honestly it's not meant to be practical, it's meant to be entertaining with a pretty faulty explanation. Seriously, people it's JUST a sword. Arguably it could use the same technology as a lightsabre anyways and I don't see many complaints about Star Wars because the lightsabre isn't realistic enough.

Actually, a lightsaber isn't completaly crazy. If a receptor was put in the end to catch the beam, it would look like a sword.

Pokeballs on the other hand.... kidding.

As for the Omni-Blade. Yes, it's a game, but what some people feel is betrayed. ME1 was known for explaining everything and it's realistic feel.

ME2 killed it all with the Lazarus Project and the lack of info for it (seriously, couldn't they make something up!?) and ME3 with the Omni-Blade that outright ****s all over the codex.

I don't see how the Omni-Blade goes against previous codex. Like I said they could easily say that they learned to manipulate light to behave like particles when they want, and waves other times. That shows no contradiction whatsoever. Just because they put something in a codec doesn't mean it will remain that way forever. They (as in the scientists in ME) learned how to make a new technology or how to make the omni tool better, what are they gonna do, throw out the technology just so they don't have to write a new codex entry? That's bogus.

Edit: Why would they have people carry around copious amounts of omni gel if they figured out a way to manipulate light to act as particles or "hard light" on demand? It's more efficient, and way less wasteful if you don't use omni gel.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 04 août 2011 - 03:50 .

[ThePwener]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Like I said earlier, if you can freeze, incinerate, and create your own battle drone with a holographic omni tool than why not a blade.... It is the swiss army knife of the late 22nd century folks.

It "manufactures" those things, though. Bioware's line so far regarding the omniblade is that it's actually a HOLOGRAM that uses "hard light".

My question is why did they go with that explanation, when they could have easily stuck to established lore by saying, "It makes blades out of omni-gel and suspends/rotates them using precisely-aligned magnetic fields." It's kind of bewildering when such a simple explanation is passed over for such a non-sensical one (as it relates to established lore).

Yeah, your's is much better.

/no sarcasm

[gamer_girl]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Like I said earlier, if you can freeze, incinerate, and create your own battle drone with a holographic omni tool than why not a blade.... It is the swiss army knife of the late 22nd century folks.

It "manufactures" those things, though. Bioware's line so far regarding the omniblade is that it's actually a HOLOGRAM that uses "hard light".

My question is why did they go with that explanation, when they could have easily stuck to established lore by saying, "It makes blades out of omni-gel and suspends/rotates them using precisely-aligned magnetic fields." It's kind of bewildering when such a simple explanation is passed over for such a non-sensical one (as it relates to established lore).

Simple reason. The new explanation is more practical in that the user wouldn't have to carry around a bunch of omni gel in order to use the sword.

Technology moves towards convenience. Is it more convenient to carry around a bunch of omni gel, or let the light manipulation technology make a sword without the waste and the need to carry omni gel. Obviously the user will pick the more convenient option.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 04 août 2011 - 03:54 .

[snackrat]

For the incineration and tech armour, I didn't see those an the actual hardlight objects but hard light indicators. I pictured a grenade inside that holographic globe, and that the tech armour was visible to make sure the soldier was aware the thing was ON. I know without the indicator there would be moments I was unaware it was disabled, and I don't want to have to wait for it to be disable to renew it either since it is vital for restoring shields when shields are down and low on health.

That said, I find the holographic knife a minor issue that merely irks me, and the gameplay I've seen thus far (admittedly not as much as many more avid players) shows excellent use of it along with more fluid combat controls. Can't WAIT to try it for myself!

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

Simple reason. The new explanation is more practical in that the user wouldn't have to carry around a bunch of omni gel in order to use the sword.

Technology moves towards convenience. Is it more convenient to carry around a bunch of omni gel, or let the light manipulation technology make a sword without the waste and the need to carry omni gel. Obviously the user will pick the more convenient option.

In ME1, I carried 999 omni-gel with no problem. It's a game, some things can't be realistic.

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Simple reason. The new explanation is more practical in that the user wouldn't have to carry around a bunch of omni gel in order to use the sword.

Technology moves towards convenience. Is it more convenient to carry around a bunch of omni gel, or let the light manipulation technology make a sword without the waste and the need to carry omni gel. Obviously the user will pick the more convenient option.

In ME1, I carried 999 omni-gel with no problem. It's a game, some things can't be realistic.

ThePwener wrote...

As for the Omni-Blade. Yes, it's a game, but what some people feel is betrayed. ME1 was known for explaining everything and it's realistic feel.

Oh so now you think you can have some things not be realistic. That was a pretty quick switch. What's more realistic, light manipulation technology, or being able to carry 999 omni gels on foot?

Modifié par gamer_girl, 04 août 2011 - 04:16 .

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

Oh so now you think you can have some things not be realistic. That was a pretty quick switch. What's more realistic, light manipulation technology, or being able to carry 999 omni gels on foot?

*Troll face here*

Look, some things need explanation, others don't. We don't even know what Omni-Gel looks like. If it's a genetically cybernetic goop, then it can easily be carried in a case. But seriously, does anyone care about the inventory?

You could carry over 50 guns in ME1 and Link can carry a buch of junk in his pockets. The inventory is irrelevant.

[littlezack]

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

[Therefore_I_Am]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Actually, if explained right, it wouldn't necessarily be against the laws of physics. And as I said before, as techbology advances so do the outdated codex entries (just like textbooks). Anyways, this may seem like a bit of a stretch but work with me. Light behaves as particles in some instances and as waves in others. If they could somehow control it to behave as a bunch of particles when it comes into contact with an object and to behave as waves when it isn't in use, then it could potentially be workable. As this is a science-fiction game, certainly that could work as a possible explanation. People like to take things too seriously. I mean really it's a game. That's like criticizing pokemon because animals don't actually evolve that quickly and they physically can't fit into small capsules. Honestly it's not meant to be practical, it's meant to be entertaining with a pretty faulty explanation. Seriously, people it's JUST a sword. Arguably it could use the same technology as a lightsabre anyways and I don't see many complaints about Star Wars because the lightsabre isn't realistic enough.

Actually, a lightsaber isn't completaly crazy. If a receptor was put in the end to catch the beam, it would look like a sword.

Pokeballs on the other hand.... kidding.

As for the Omni-Blade. Yes, it's a game, but what some people feel is betrayed. ME1 was known for explaining everything and it's realistic feel.

ME2 killed it all with the Lazarus Project and the lack of info for it (seriously, couldn't they make something up!?) and ME3 with the Omni-Blade that outright ****s all over the codex.

Pretty obvious that shep was brought back with reaper tech. If the reapers can turn a fully organic corpse into a cyborg zombie, bringing it to life by soley driving a spike through it (a la Husks), then anything is possible.

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Oh so now you think you can have some things not be realistic. That was a pretty quick switch. What's more realistic, light manipulation technology, or being able to carry 999 omni gels on foot?

*Troll face here*

Look, some things need explanation, others don't. We don't even know what Omni-Gel looks like. If it's a genetically cybernetic goop, then it can easily be carried in a case. But seriously, does anyone care about the inventory?

You could carry over 50 guns in ME1 and Link can carry a buch of junk in his pockets. The inventory is irrelevant.

If you're gonna criticize the game for realism, you should be criticizing all aspects of it being unrealistic, not something so incredibly unimportant. You don't seem to notice the many other unrealistic aspects in Mass Effect, but oh noes as soon as the omni tool gets a new technology, you flip. Seriously what's your deal?

[ThePwener]

littlezack wrote...

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

Omni-Gel is a cybernetic goo composed of (possibly) nanos that, when applied to computers and other tech, allows the user to manipulate the interface.

Really, makes more sense then the Mass Relays.

[Therefore_I_Am]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Like I said earlier, if you can freeze, incinerate, and create your own battle drone with a holographic omni tool than why not a blade.... It is the swiss army knife of the late 22nd century folks.

It "manufactures" those things, though. Bioware's line so far regarding the omniblade is that it's actually a HOLOGRAM that uses "hard light".

My question is why did they go with that explanation, when they could have easily stuck to established lore by saying, "It makes blades out of omni-gel and suspends/rotates them using precisely-aligned magnetic fields." It's kind of bewildering when such a simple explanation is passed over for such a non-sensical one (as it relates to established lore).

It's one of those things that should be left to the imagination for the moment. No point in nitpicking and speculating unless you want a headache.
It can be easily said that the hologram can bend matter to a degree with ease. Maybe that's what hard light is. Alrighty than...

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

If you're gonna criticize the game for realism, you should be criticizing all aspects of it being unrealistic, not something so incredibly unimportant. You don't seem to notice the many other unrealistic aspects in Mass Effect, but oh noes as soon as the omni tool gets a new technology, you flip. Seriously what's your deal?

Some things are worthy of discussion, the inventory isn't one of them. Seriously though, you're the one that's the most bothered by my behavior and reasoning. What's YOUR deal?

It's just a game, but the Omni-Blade effectively violates the laws established by the codex. That's what bothers me. But thanks to this thread, two (very) good excuses for it have been found.

[littlezack]

ThePwener wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

Omni-Gel is a cybernetic goo composed of (possibly) nanos that, when applied to computers and other tech, allows the user to manipulate the interface.

Really, makes more sense then the Mass Relays.

From the codex:

Omni-gel is composed of common, reusable industrial plastics, ceramics, and light alloys kept in a semi-molten state.

I don't see anything about 'nanos'.

[Jake71887]

ThePwener wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

Omni-Gel is a cybernetic goo composed of (possibly) nanos that, when applied to computers and other tech, allows the user to manipulate the interface.

Really, makes more sense then the Mass Relays.

Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU, doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to the rest of the world. And honestly, who tries to argue sense involving science fiction? 

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

Omni-Gel is a cybernetic goo composed of (possibly) nanos that, when applied to computers and other tech, allows the user to manipulate the interface.

Really, makes more sense then the Mass Relays.

You speculate on its size anyways, so why not accept that they found a new technology that doesn't need omni gel instead of complaining that it isn't realistic?

[ThePwener]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

It can be easily said that the hologram can bend matter to a degree with ease. Maybe that's what hard light is. Alrighty than...

No, hardlight constructs are holographic constructions that bend light to a solid form.

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

littlezack wrote...

 I'd say the more unrealistic thing is how what appears to be melted down weapon slag allows you to instantly hack a computer.

Omni-Gel is a cybernetic goo composed of (possibly) nanos that, when applied to computers and other tech, allows the user to manipulate the interface.

Really, makes more sense then the Mass Relays.

You speculate on its size anyways, so why not accept that they found a new technology that doesn't need omni gel instead of complaining that it isn't realistic?

Im already at peace with it. Why are you so concerned on pushing this?

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

If you're gonna criticize the game for realism, you should be criticizing all aspects of it being unrealistic, not something so incredibly unimportant. You don't seem to notice the many other unrealistic aspects in Mass Effect, but oh noes as soon as the omni tool gets a new technology, you flip. Seriously what's your deal?

Some things are worthy of discussion, the inventory isn't one of them. Seriously though, you're the one that's the most bothered by my behavior and reasoning. What's YOUR deal?

It's just a game, but the Omni-Blade effectively violates the laws established by the codex. That's what bothers me. But thanks to this thread, two (very) good excuses for it have been found.

Haha I'm bothered because you're sticking your foot in your mouth with self contradictions and narrow minded thinking.

Not to mention your blatant insolence towards the BW team.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 04 août 2011 - 04:35 .

[ThePwener]

gamer_girl wrote...

Haha I'm bothered because you're sticking your foot in your mouth with self contradictions and narrow minded thinking.

Excuse me? are you for real? So you're bothered that Im bothered that the Omni-Blade contradicts the codex, and you say Im contradicting myself because I think the invetory size is irreleant.

Yup, you're insane.

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

gamer_girl wrote...

Haha I'm bothered because you're sticking your foot in your mouth with self contradictions and narrow minded thinking.

Excuse me? are you for real? So you're bothered that Im bothered that the Omni-Blade contradicts the codex, and you say Im contradicting myself because I think the invetory size is irreleant.

Yup, you're insane.

The omni blade doesn't contradict precious codex though. Like I said, it's a new technology that makes the old one outdated.

Also calling me insane doesn't further your non existing point at all. It's kind of laughable that you saw that as necessary.

And if you honestly believe that inventory size is the only other thing ME did that wasn't realistic, you are very very misinformed. The fact that you complain about this one when there are so many others of greater importance is quite humourous.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 04 août 2011 - 04:41 .

[ThePwener]

Kind of laughable that you are so bothered by the way I think. That isn't healthy. That's why you're insane. What I think does not effect you in any way.

[gamer_girl]

ThePwener wrote...

Kind of laughable that you are so bothered by the way I think. That isn't healthy. That's why you're insane. What I think does not effect you in any way.

No it doesn't. I digress, but you were arguing against me just as much as I was against you. I just absolutely hate when people disrespect the people that put incredible amounts of work into a game. They work hard to please fans, and when fans are so nitpicky that they'll tear apart a bloody codex entry it makes me angry. They are not "thickheaded" just because they thought up a new concept. That is all I have to say.