Sylvanpyxie wrote...
"It's not all that simple."
I find loss of senses is hardly the same as frying your lover's insides when mating. Senses are open to common attack, for one. Genetic make-up isn't.
However if Samara was able to "learn the defect" would that not also make her open to the same corruption that Morinth suffered? The same addiction?
Ace of Dawn wrote...
Just to point out, the "mystique" of it wasn't lost, expanded upon. The force is still mysterious and mystical, it's just that the midichlorians were able to detect it, and through them, we can detect it, too. Just an extra step.
littlezack wrote...
And while we're on the subject. can anyone explain how Unity allowed Shepard to resurrect the dead in ME1? Where was the outcry on that?
Someone With Mass wrote...
littlezack wrote...
And while we're on the subject. can anyone explain how Unity allowed Shepard to resurrect the dead in ME1? Where was the outcry on that?
And why couldn't Shepard use Unity if teammates fell on the suicide mission, in that case?
Ieldra2 wrote...
The explanation was alien to the genre, and whoever put that in didn't realize that Star Wars isnt science fiction.
Someone With Mass wrote...
Or why isn't the Normandy forced to discharge the core?
didymos1120 wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
The explanation was alien to the genre, and whoever put that in didn't realize that Star Wars isnt science fiction.
"Whoever"? Yeah, that'd be Lucas. He wrote all the prequels.
Shepard did not 'resurrect the dead' in ME1 or ME2. Miranda is the only one with that in her resume. Shepard Restored incapacitated squad-mates to the fight with a quick application of medi-gel. No one was ever dead, simply wounded to the point where they could not fight.And while we're on the subject. can anyone explain how Unity allowed Shepard to resurrect the dead in ME1? Where was the outcry on that?
Modifié par SandTrout, 06 août 2011 - 09:42 .
Ieldra2 wrote...
I feel the same with regard to fantasy-like powers like Reave and Dominate in the ME universe. They really shouldn't exist. I'm sure the game designers could come up with other cool powers that don't break the feel of the universe. And while I'm at it, biotic and tech effects should travel at light speed and in a straight line.
Modifié par SynheKatze, 06 août 2011 - 09:41 .
SandTrout wrote...
Lets not derail this onto a Star Wars complain-fest.Shepard did not 'resurrect the dead' in ME1 or ME2. Miranda is the only one with that in her resume. Shepard Restored incapacitated squad-mates to the fight with a quick application of medi-gel. No one was ever dead, simply wounded to the point where they could not fight.And while we're on the subject. can anyone explain how Unity allowed Shepard to resurrect the dead in ME1? Where was the outcry on that?
Modifié par littlezack, 06 août 2011 - 09:44 .
Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 06 août 2011 - 09:47 .
didymos1120 wrote...
We almost had to do that in ME2. There are a number of EDI audio files where she nags you about needing to dump core charge.
More like you reading too much into something that is a description of a game mechanic and not an in character explaination. 'Dead' in terms of gameplay mechanics =/= always equal in-character dead.littlezack wrote...
Oh. Really? Hm.
Taken straight from the game's description for Unity.
Restores dead squad members with 15% health and 40% shields.
Is any part of that unclear or vague?
SandTrout wrote...
More like you reading too much into something that is a description of a game mechanic and not an in character explaination. 'Dead' in terms of gameplay mechanics =/= always equal in-character dead.littlezack wrote...
Oh. Really? Hm.
Taken straight from the game's description for Unity.
Restores dead squad members with 15% health and 40% shields.
Is any part of that unclear or vague?
littlezack wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
More like you reading too much into something that is a description of a game mechanic and not an in character explaination. 'Dead' in terms of gameplay mechanics =/= always equal in-character dead.littlezack wrote...
Oh. Really? Hm.
Taken straight from the game's description for Unity.
Restores dead squad members with 15% health and 40% shields.
Is any part of that unclear or vague?
So you can ignore the lore when it doesn't suit your argument? And when Ashley takes a rocket blast in the face and falls limp, she's just sleeping, and a wave of Shepard's magic omnitool wakes her back up? Got you.
My point is, when you have, say, a book, you can exercise complete and easy control of the lore. Making a videogame, especially one like Mass Effect, is different. Not everything is going to match up 100%. Some things are just going to be in the game because the developers think they're fun to put in. Should it all be like that? No, that would be over the top. But you shouldn't be so hung up on the lore that every detail and game mechanic has to be obsessively explained
Ability descriptions exist outside the lore for the benefit of the player. If I am able to revive Ashley with some medi-gel, then we may presume that she was knocked unconscious (not an uncommon result of explosions) rather than actually killed in an in-game sense. Advanced armor, shields, and all that.So you can ignore the lore when it doesn't suit your argument? And when Ashley takes a rocket blast in the face and falls limp, she's just sleeping, and a wave of Shepard's magic omnitool wakes her back up? Got you.
And if you read my other posts, you would understand that I agree with this part. Your argument was still a failure though, and I dislike allowing stupid arguments to stand unopposed.My point is, when you have, say, a book, you can exercise complete and easy control of the lore. Making a videogame, especially one like Mass Effect, is different. Not everything is going to match up 100%. Some things are just going to be in the game because the developers think they're fun to put in. Should it all be like that? No, that would be over the top. But you shouldn't be so hung up on the lore that every detail and game mechanic has to be obsessively explained.
SandTrout wrote...
Ability descriptions exist outside the lore for the benefit of the player. If I am able to revive Ashley with some medi-gel, then we may presume that she was knocked unconscious (not an uncommon result of explosions) rather than actually killed in an in-game sense. Advanced armor, shields, and all that.So you can ignore the lore when it doesn't suit your argument? And when Ashley takes a rocket blast in the face and falls limp, she's just sleeping, and a wave of Shepard's magic omnitool wakes her back up? Got you.
And if you read my other posts, you would understand that I agree with this part. Your argument was still a failure though, and I dislike allowing stupid arguments to stand unopposed.My point is, when you have, say, a book, you can exercise complete and easy control of the lore. Making a videogame, especially one like Mass Effect, is different. Not everything is going to match up 100%. Some things are just going to be in the game because the developers think they're fun to put in. Should it all be like that? No, that would be over the top. But you shouldn't be so hung up on the lore that every detail and game mechanic has to be obsessively explained.
Because in a mechanical context, Dead is more specific to your henchmen having been stripped of their HP, while 'incapacitated' and 'unconcious' could be misunderstood by the player to mean the effects of other powers like Stasis and Neural Shock.The argument was fine. If they're just knocked out and sleeping, why doesn't the description just say that? Why 'DEAD'?
SandTrout wrote...
Because in a mechanical context, Dead is more specific to your henchmen having been stripped of their HP, while 'incapacitated' and 'unconcious' could be misunderstood by the player to mean the effects of other powers like Stasis and Neural Shock.The argument was fine. If they're just knocked out and sleeping, why doesn't the description just say that? Why 'DEAD'?
CuseGirl wrote...
I can't believe anyone is discussing the complexity of the word "DEAD" in a video game context. Super Mario seemd to fall into bottomless holes and get killed by a myriad of Koopas but he kept coming back. And whenever that happened, I would say "crap, I died", not "awww man, Mario is incapacitated by that flying koopa"
SandTrout wrote...
Because in a mechanical context, Dead is more specific to your henchmen having been stripped of their HP, while 'incapacitated' and 'unconcious' could be misunderstood by the player to mean the effects of other powers like Stasis and Neural Shock.The argument was fine. If they're just knocked out and sleeping, why doesn't the description just say that? Why 'DEAD'?
Retour en haut