6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

That makes sense, but that also highlights the need for bioware to put more of their narrative into the story, rather than the codex. Especially when they play around, or expand said narrative.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...

And there isn't a contradiction with the GARDIAN turret on Horizon. GARDIAN stands for General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network. Nowhere does it say GARDIAN is a laser. The GARDIAN systems on ships are called GARDIAN lasers; the turret was simply a different type of GARDIAN.

Once again the codex pleas against you,

Weapons: GARDIAN
A ships' General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network (GARDIAN) consists of anti-missile/anti-fighter laser turrets on the exterior hull. Because these are under computer control, the gunnery control officer needs to do little beyond turn the system on and designate targets as hostile.
Since lasers move at light speed, they cannot be dodged by anything moving at non-relativistic speeds. Unless the beam is aimed poorly, it will always hit its target. In the early stages of a battle, the GARDIAN fire is 100% accurate. It is not 100% lethal, but it doesn't have to be. Damaged fighters must break off for repairs.

Lasers are limited by diffraction. The beams "spread out", decreasing the energy density (watts per m2) the weapon can place on a target. Any high-powered laser is a short-ranged weapon.

GARDIAN networks have another limitation: heat. Weapons-grade lasers require "cool-down" time, during which heat is transferred to sinks or radiators. As lasers fire, heat builds within them, reducing damage, range, and accuracy.

Fighters attack in swarms. The first few WILL be hit by GARDIAN, but as the battle continues, the effects of laser overheat allow the attacks to press ever closer to the ship. Constant use will burn out the laser.

GARDIAN lasers typically operate in infrared frequencies. Shorter frequencies would offer superior stopping power and range, but degradation of focal arrays and mirrors would make them expensive to maintain, and most prefer mechanical reliability over leading-edge performance where lives are concerned. Salarians, however, use near-ultraviolet frequency lasers with six times the range, believing that having additional time to shoot down incoming missiles is more important.

Lasers are not blocked by the kinetic barriers of capital ships. However, the range of lasers limits their use to rare "knife fight"-range ship-to-ship combat.

Not sure when the Codex disagreed with me the first time, but okay...

That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

@Nashiktal

I agree, a Codex entry on the Horizon turrets would have been nice and dispelled any confusion on the matter (assuming it's not a screw up that can be reasoned away).

Modifié par 111987, 21 septembre 2011 - 06:41 .

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...
That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

The Towers are callded "GARDIAN" the Codex entry is also called "GARDIAN"

So that could mean two things.

1. If GARDIAN turrets are only ment to be Ship armanent.

Then:

The towers on horizon are a classical case of inproper use of lore-related material in the narative, is simply fix by either not calling them Gardian, or make them actually use lasers (but that still doesn't fix them making

2. If GARDIAN turrets Lasers

Then.

The Wrong visual effect is used and Gardian just should have fired lasers at the ship, but due to Time/lazyness/budget whatever a rocket effect is used.

Modifié par Fixers0, 21 septembre 2011 - 06:52 .

[Nashiktal]

If its number 2, it also has some lore inconsistency there. Lasers ignore kinetic barriers.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

The Towers are callded "GARDIAN" the Codex entry is also called "GARDIAN"

The Codex entry is about ship GARDIAN's. It's even in the 'Ships and Vehicles' section. They are not the same thing; there is no inconsistency here.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Nashiktal wrote...

If its number 2, it also has some lore inconsistency there. Lasers ignore kinetic barriers.

Someone corect me if Im wrong, but I didn't see the barriers stopping the shots....

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

If its number 2, it also has some lore inconsistency there. Lasers ignore kinetic barriers.

Someone corect me if Im wrong, but I didn't see the barriers stopping the shots....

During the Praetorian fight, you can see the turret fire being repelled by the shields.

[Lotion Soronarr]

111987 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

The Towers are callded "GARDIAN" the Codex entry is also called "GARDIAN"

The Codex entry is about ship GARDIAN's. It's even in the 'Ships and Vehicles' section. They are not the same thing; there is no inconsistency here.

GUARDIAN is GUARDIAN. Doesn't matter where you mount it. There is no differrence between a laser mounted on a ship and on ground.

GUARDIANS carry sufficient punch to outright destroy fighters and damage/destroy frigates.

Anti-capital grade weapons ona small colony would be way overkill.

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

111987 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

The Towers are callded "GARDIAN" the Codex entry is also called "GARDIAN"

The Codex entry is about ship GARDIAN's. It's even in the 'Ships and Vehicles' section. They are not the same thing; there is no inconsistency here.

GUARDIAN is GUARDIAN. Doesn't matter where you mount it. There is no differrence between a laser mounted on a ship and on ground.

GUARDIANS carry sufficient punch to outright destroy fighters and damage/destroy frigates.

Anti-capital grade weapons ona small colony would be way overkill.

You do know that it's GARDIAN, not GUARDIAN, right?

And no, a GARDIAN laser and a GARDIAN turret is not the same thing. GARDIAN just stands for General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network. Says nothing about a laser. The Codex entry talks about ship based GARDIAN systems, which ARE lasers.

[Fixers0]

aznricepuff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...
No, we don't know that. The human brain has never been recovered and recreated to the extent we are referencing. It is entirely possible that if the brain had any intact anything left, given the short amount of time, Lazerus could have completely restored Shep to the state they were in before the attack.

You "know" nothing in this case, it's all conjecture and theoretical, and you are applying 20th/early 21th century medicine and science as your basis.

The wrokings of the human brain won't change in the future. It works as it works.

And there isn't any scientific of medical discovery or technolgoy that can re-create something from nothing. Perdiod.
FTL is rock-hard science compared to that.

Why can't people just accept that Shepard's resurrection is just another plot device that can only happen in a science fiction world. I don't hear many people complaining about FTL travel, which is just as impossible.

These are the kinds of comments, that boggle me the most, because they trying to defend bad writing by handwaving it,

First of all genre is irrelevant when it comes to the quality of writing.

Secondly, FTL or any other fiction elments in mass effect have nothing to with the resurrection of Shepard.

With that out of the way let's just take a small step back and just look at what the narative gives us about Shepard's dead:

1. A cutscene showing Shepard falling into the planet at very high speeds.
2. A Comic book that shows Shepard burning because of athmospheric re-entry.
3. Planet descriptipn data about Alchera describing it having an athmosphere of methane and ammonia.

With those three Elements in place Shepard's body would have most likely:

1. Splashed right apart once he rammed right into the planet's surface
2. Burned up right in the athosmphere as show in ME: Genesis.
3. Being disvolved by the high concentration of methane and ammonia.

So this is what would most likley happend to Shepard's body, thus the notion of "meat and tubes" is false because it contradicts given info about the Shepard falling into alchera, In conclusion this means that wouldn't be any body to rebuild by Cerberus at leas without further expostion on this subject

Now this is a very basic analysis, made out of observations from what the game gives us about the subject, which is suprisingly small, only a cutscene, some techno jargon that doesn't go anywere.

See, here's the problem, Because the writers aren't using any kind of Fictional or litteraty explanation on how this is possible, they have to give us a contemporary one with enough scientif evidence, but since bioware allready screwed up the logcial and scientifc details on why there even is body to recover makes that a no-go aswell.

Ultimatly it yet aqain comes down on lack of exposition on given information and poor presentaion of what fiction there is, making it yet another prime example of bad writing, shattering the suspension of disbelief.

To make a long story short. When someone is seen falling into a planet with all kinds of conditons going that will lead to the utter destruction of his/her body, and five minutes latter he's walking again, then we really need some serious exposition or any fictional means to explain on how this is possible.

Modifié par Fixers0, 21 septembre 2011 - 07:24 .

[Fixers0]

111987 wrote...


The Codex entry is about ship GARDIAN's. It's even in the 'Ships and Vehicles' section. They are not the same thing; there is no inconsistency here.

For all i know they are just called "GARDIAN" there's no suplemental material or any evidence within the lore that there are different types of GARDIAN turrets.

[111987]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...


The Codex entry is about ship GARDIAN's. It's even in the 'Ships and Vehicles' section. They are not the same thing; there is no inconsistency here.

For all i know they are just called "GARDIAN" there's no suplemental material or any evidence within the lore that there are different types of GARDIAN turrets.

Besides the name, GARDIAN, that doesn't say it's a laser? How about the in-game evidence where we see a GARDIAN turret not firing lasers?

The evidence is right there, should you choose to see it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yes, the codex sez its' a laser.

The evidence you point there is the evidence of someone screwing things up.

Not only does it make no sense to mount captial-grade weapons on a small colony, it also makes no sense to call two different weapon systems the same.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you're not the one to decide I didn't do it.
No matter how much you wish your arguments are solid, so far, they have proven rather woobly and poor.

I guess describing how they are so instead of throwing petty insults at me would be too much for you, since that's all you ever do.

Hey, I can tell you that your arguments are sh*t too, but that wouldn't lead anywhere, now would it? 

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

Besides the name, GARDIAN, that doesn't say it's a laser? How about the in-game evidence where we see a GARDIAN turret not firing lasers?

The evidence is right there, should you choose to see it.

General ARea Defense Integration Anti-spacecraft Network.

That doesn't say that all of them are using lasers. The GARDIAN defense towers we see on Horizon were also mounted on the ground with an underground power network. Static defenses with such short range wouldn't be so good, since a target can slip by once they're overheating or shoot the turrets down long before entering their killzone.

Besides, they can proably be modified for different scenarios or they have a secondary fire mode.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Of course in wouldn't. Unlike me, you can't back it up....

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course in wouldn't. Unlike me, you can't back it up....

Unlike you, I don't contradict myself.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course in wouldn't. Unlike me, you can't back it up....

Unlike you, I don't contradict myself.

I didn't contradict myself.. Messed up quote tags and confusions on Thompsons behalf.. But lovely how you constatnly try to fall back to that.

[Someone With Mass]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I didn't contradict myself.. Messed up quote tags and confusions on Thompsons behalf.. But lovely how you constatnly try to fall back to that.

You have a funny definition of "constantly".

[onelifecrisis]

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 21 septembre 2011 - 11:14 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Fixers0 wrote...

111987 wrote...
That Codex entry is about the GARDIAN system on a ship, which happens to use lasers. The GARDIAN system on Horizon wasn't mounted on a ship

The Towers are callded "GARDIAN" the Codex entry is also called "GARDIAN"

So that could mean two things.

1. If GARDIAN turrets are only ment to be Ship armanent.

Then:

The towers on horizon are a classical case of inproper use of lore-related material in the narative, is simply fix by either not calling them Gardian, or make them actually use lasers (but that still doesn't fix them making

2. If GARDIAN turrets Lasers

Then.

The Wrong visual effect is used and Gardian just should have fired lasers at the ship, but due to Time/lazyness/budget whatever a rocket effect is used.

I'll chalk this one up to lack of communication between the cutscene animators and the writers. Those turrets should have either been depicted as lasers (not Star Wars lasers, either ), or not called GARDIAN.

[Someone With Mass]

There's nothing that says the GARDIAN defenses are exclusive to ships, though.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I've said before I don't care if it's bad science.  As long as it's consistent with the universe.   I'm fully willing to accept that the way the ME universe works is different from how our universe works, provided I know how the "space magic" functions.  

I'll take a "bad" answer over no answer for the sake of consitency.  You, however, would prefer no answer rather than a "bad" answer.  And seem to consider anyone who thinks otherwise to be mentally deficient.  Two differnt ways of approaching the material I guess.

This is where subjectivity becomes problematic. Take the conversation with Mordin where he makes the "humans are genetically diverse" claim. Great conversation, I personally loved it. But quite a few people criticize the scene from a biological standpoint.

Imo, this is one of the many defenses in favor of the Lazarus Project and why I actually prefer that it doesn't have an in-depth scientific explanation; it could easily make it appear worse. I personally was more concerned with Shepard's lack of identity crisis than with a non-existent scientific explanation.  

[Killjoy Cutter]

Fixers0 wrote...
2. A Comic book that shows Shepard burning because of athmospheric re-entry.

On that one, meh, it's a secondary media, and simply a bad comic, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.  It's certainly not something in the game, so it's hardly evidence of the GAME being bad... 

[Killjoy Cutter]

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

aznricepuff wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You appear to have left a step out of your explanation.  How does the speed of light having the same velocity no matter your own velocity cause (local) FTL travel to be impossible? 

Imagine a photon of light coming at you from behind (he). Now imagine that you try to outrun it (travelling faster than light). You can't, since we've already established that the speed of light has "the same velocity no matter your own velocity". It runs towards you as fast as it would if you stayed put. This may seem to harbor a contradiction, until you realise that when you travel very very fast, time and space dilate and contract (from a passerby, the beam of light will take ages to get you, but in your own POV, it takes as little as it would if you stayed put).

If you can't outrun a photon, you can't travel faster than light (it's saying the same thing).

What you can, however, is dilate and contract space-time (as mentioned). If you travel sufficiently fast (near c), you'll get anywhere you want in very little time. Problem is, this "time" is measured in your own POV. From the Earth's point of view, it may have passed thousands, millions of years.

Indeed. 

That's not what I asked or why I asked it, however. 

At any rate, the only argument against FTL that makes no sense whatsoever and strikes me as utterly suspect is the whole "FTL is always time travel"... thing.  Not important, certainly not enough to derail the thread with it, in retrospect. 

Well what was it that you were asking? And btw it is true that every scheme that allows for FTL travel also allows for time travel under special and general relativity.

I honestly don't think I can explain what I was asking, now that I think about it.  **shrug**

On the other point, how does getting somewhere faster than light would have, cause travel backwards in time?  I get how actually accelerating past the speed of light, if physically possible, could look like the opposite side of the slowing of time as one approached the speed of light.

But what about versions of FTL that bypass accelerating beyond local c, such as wormholes or "hyperspace" (setting aside any questions as to the plausibility of either).  How does taking a shortcut from A to B and beating a photon there cause any chance of travel backwards in time? 

Let's say you create a wormhole linking a spacecraft to Earth. You fly around in the spacecraft at relativistic speeds for some time, then return to Earth. Because the spacecraft was traveling near c, time dilation effects cause the spacecraft end of the wormhole to age more slowly than the Earth side. So let's say the spacecraft end ages 10 years while the Earth end ages 100 years. Yet, the two ends of the wormhole have to match up with regard to time for someone traveling through it. So if you just walk onto the spacecraft after it has returned to Earth, then walk through the wormhole, when you come out the other side (on Earth) you will have traveled 90 years into the past (to a point in time when the Earth end of the wormhole has aged 10 years - the same amount it has aged on the other end when you walked through it).

The two ends don't just match up with the "local time"?