260 réponses à ce sujet

[CptData]

iakus wrote...

Her name is Ash Williams.

You know she's gonna be a shotgun wielder 

Hmm, in my headcanon her boomstick is an assault rifle. She never used a shotgun in any of my playthroughs - I had Wrex for that work. She was no sniper either, that was Shepard's job.

Ashley's boomstick is what you have in your mind :happy:

Modifié par CptData, 25 novembre 2011 - 08:04 .

[DoNotIngest]

Psh. You silly, confused fanboys and your mislabelling of the True Wielder of Shotguns.

[PPF65]

It looks like a slightly more protective version of Miranda's clothing. Only slightly more protective though.
I think what people need to appreciate about the clothing worn in Mass Effect is the physics of the weapons. The guns fire tiny pieces of metal (smaller than a bullet) at a noteworthy percentage of the speed of light. Lets do the math.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Let say that guns in Mass Effect fire their projectiles at 2,997,924.58 m/s, 1% of the speed of light.

Lets also assume that the piece of metal that functions as the bullet in a gun in Mass Effect weighs 0.000745 kg, roughly 10% the mass of a 9mm bullet.

The equation for kinetic energy is (1/2)(Mass)(Velocity)^2 = Ek

That means, to get the kinetic energy of a Mass Effect bullet, we simply:

(1/2)(0.000745)(2997924)^2 = 3,347,863,041 Joules of kinetic energy

To put that in perspective, a good antiarmor round might hit with ~700,000 Joules of kinetic energy. Basically, armor wouldn't help you if you were on the business end of a Mass Effect gun. Not at all. You can complain about the realism, or lack thereof, in the combat wear of the characters. But, take note of these numbers. That is over THREE BILLION, Joules of energy, all focussed onto a tiny point, which makes it even more effective. If that hit you in real life, it wouldn't matter what you were wearing, you'd die without ever knowing it. The bullet itself would sail through you, but the shockwave cause by the energy it displaced into your body would essentially destroy all of your vital systems instantly, as well as shatter your bones, rupture you blood vessels, and in all likely hood, physically rip you to pieces.

In this case, what clothes the characters wear really doesn't matter. If you want to talk realism, Mass Effect should be one hit kill, and that is assuming that the kick on the gun doesn't disintegrate every bone in your arm...

[onelifecrisis]

PPF65 wrote...

It looks like a slightly more protective version of Miranda's clothing. Only slightly more protective though.
I think what people need to appreciate about the clothing worn in Mass Effect is the physics of the weapons. The guns fire tiny pieces of metal (smaller than a bullet) at a noteworthy percentage of the speed of light. Lets do the math.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Let say that guns in Mass Effect fire their projectiles at 2,997,924.58 m/s, 1% of the speed of light.

Lets also assume that the piece of metal that functions as the bullet in a gun in Mass Effect weighs 0.000745 kg, roughly 10% the mass of a 9mm bullet.

The equation for kinetic energy is (1/2)(Mass)(Velocity)^2 = Ek

That means, to get the kinetic energy of a Mass Effect bullet, we simply:

(1/2)(0.000745)(2997924)^2 = 3,347,863,041 Joules of kinetic energy

To put that in perspective, a good antiarmor round might hit with ~700,000 Joules of kinetic energy. Basically, armor wouldn't help you if you were on the business end of a Mass Effect gun. Not at all. You can complain about the realism, or lack thereof, in the combat wear of the characters. But, take note of these numbers. That is over THREE BILLION, Joules of energy, all focussed onto a tiny point, which makes it even more effective. If that hit you in real life, it wouldn't matter what you were wearing, you'd die without ever knowing it. The bullet itself would sail through you, but the shockwave cause by the energy it displaced into your body would essentially destroy all of your vital systems instantly, as well as shatter your bones, rupture you blood vessels, and in all likely hood, physically rip you to pieces.

In this case, what clothes the characters wear really doesn't matter. If you want to talk realism, Mass Effect should be one hit kill, and that is assuming that the kick on the gun doesn't disintegrate every bone in your arm...

This is really beside the point. Practically every combatant in the ME games wears armour. In ME2 some enemies have a whole "health bar" made of armor, in addition to their actual health. Bullets do not one-hit-kill, and do not move at anywhere near the speed of light (at least in ME2, you can watch the tracers). This is the stuff that shapes player's perceptions of the game, the universe, and the "physics". Not the codex.

[PPF65]

I don't see how its besides the point. If you want realism, then you accept ALL of the realism, not just the parts you have a problem with. The only reason the tracers are visible, like in all video games, is so that players can see that they are in fact hitting what they are aiming at.

Really, if I knew that getting shot once would be instant, gory death, I would want to be as mobile as possible. That would mean no armor at all.

And the reason the bullets don't actually move at the speed of light in actual game play is because we wouldn't see them move, like you said, we see the tracers.

The math is entirely the point. Its actually more realistic that people wouldn't wear any armor at all, because it would just serve to slow them down and make them a more obvious target.

[Terror_K]

Some of you seem to be forgetting that the Mass Effect armour wasn't originally just designed to be armour, but a space suit, environmental suit, radiation suit, etc. all built into one outfit. That's why in ME1 almost everybody wore proper armour: because they were operating in dangerous and varied environments on different planets with different hazards. ME2 seemed to just toss the practicality aside in favour of being "rule of cool, teh badassorz!!1"

It's not just about realism either, but consistency and IP integrity. So many people used "kinetic barriers" as an excuse for the outfits, despite the fact that the codex outright states that they do next to nothing to protect against environment hazards and literally are just for stopping weapons fire from hitting you. Much of the protection technology including kinetic barriers and medi-gel dispensers are stated as being part of armour, not just clothing.

Also, you can't have a main plot plot that revolves around the main character getting spaced one moment being a major factor, and then completely ignore the dangers of space for the rest of it by having half the main cast running around in their PJs for much of the game, which just trivialises the whole thing.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 novembre 2011 - 08:43 .

[PPF65]

Well, if its about protecting people from harmful envionments that people have a problem with, then yeah, going dressed like Miranga or Jack is essentially suicide. I can agree with that.

But from the mathematic stand point, assuming you could get into combat, you wouldn't want to wear anything heavy at all. Your bast chance would be to run like hell. To say nothing of the fact that the gun could kill the person firing it, either by tearing of their arm resulting in catastrophic blood loss, or by exploding from the reactive force of firing a tangible object with that much energy, and causing massive trauma to your entire body.

My point was that, if you're seeking realism, your first complaint should be that, in all three games, Shepard should die as soon as s/he fires any of the guns. And who/what ever Shepard shoots should be totally annihilated as well. Basically, the entire basis of the game, the shooting in combat, turns realism on its head. I think we can cut Bioware some slack in regards to skin exposure in hostile environments like deep space and absolute zero temperatures...

Modifié par PPF65, 25 novembre 2011 - 08:47 .

[ForteSJGR]

Hmmmmmm, needs more iconic pink.

[onelifecrisis]

PPF65 wrote...

I don't see how its besides the point. If you want realism, then you accept ALL of the realism...

And all the contradictions that come with it? That doesn't make any sense. You've said yourself that if we have "full realism" (by your definiton) then we have to have insta-deaths. I'm guessing you don't actually want insta-deaths, which means you've chosen to accept that particular lack of realism rather than reject the codex. What makes your choice more valid than the inverse?

PPF65 wrote...

And the reason the bullets don't actually move at the speed of light in actual game play is because we wouldn't see them move, like you said, we see the tracers.

Nope, we see the bullets. Don't believe me? Get heightened adrenaline rush and dodge enemy fire. Or just enable an ammo power like Incendiary and start shooting a wall with AR turned on, and note how the "tracers" burst into flame on impact.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:10 .

[Terror_K]

Why would the gun kill the person firing it? There's barely any recoil at all to Mass Effect weapons compared to their modern day equivalents.

Also, the armour isn't just there to simply stop the round, but to minimise the damage by slowing it, taking the impact force as much as it can, stopping any wounds from being exposed, etc. The argument that it wouldn't make a difference only seems to enforce how much more necessary it is as opposed to ME2's squaddies running around and taking hits to their bare skin.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 novembre 2011 - 08:59 .

[Swampthing500]

If your combat outfit exposes parts of the breats, it is an extremely poor combat outfit.

Possible counters:

1: Ashley still has shields!

Answer: Shields can be deactivated or reduced, exposing her.

2: Only a small part of the body is exposed!!

Answer: Yes, the part of the body that can provide access to the lungs and heart.

3: It's just a game!!!

Answer: It's called supsension of disbelief. The game has explosions, shrapnel flying about and hostile environments. Why would a hardened warrior expose herself to harm, just to look sexy?

4: There is nothing wrong with fan-service!!!!

Answer: fan-servce can be used for other characters. Ashley has already been comunnicated as an extremely tough and capable warrior. Having her dressed like a high-priced escort would diminish her character.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:07 .

[PPF65]

onelifecrisis wrote...

PPF65 wrote...

I don't see how its besides the point. If you want realism, then you accept ALL of the realism...

And all the contradictions that come with it? That doesn't make any sense. You've said yourself that if we have "full realism" (by your definiton) then we have to have insta-deaths. I'm guessing you don't actually want insta-deaths, which means you've chosen to accept that particular lack of realism rather than reject the codex. What makes your choice more valid than the inverse?

PPF65 wrote...

And the reason the bullets don't actually move at the speed of light in actual game play is because we wouldn't see them move, like you said, we see the tracers.

Nope, we see the bullets. Don't believe me? Get heightened adrenaline rush and dodge enemy fire.

Now you're missing the point. If the bullets in the game actually moved at 1% of the speed of light during gameplay, we wouldn't see them. I know that Adrenaline Rush lets you dodge bullets in ME2, again, not the point. If players didn't see where the bullets were when fired, they wouldn't know where they were coming from, and so the game would have to include some lame ass HUD thing that flashes in the direction from which you're being shot, like back in goldeneye on N64. No thank you.

And I accept the codex because I'm playing a sci-fi game. The "fi" part stands for "FICTION" just FYI. And the realism isn't my definition. Realism is what is real. What is real, is taht if the guns did what they actually described, it would kill you to shoot them, and kill whoever got hit in one shot. That would be boring, and not remotely a fun game to play.

Seriously, let Bioware dress their characters up like they are. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is perfect.

Why not complain about real problems, like how most of the missions in ME2 were basically either recruitment or loyalty, and didn't add anything to the actual Collectors plot that was central to teh main storyline.

Or complain about how there was no inventory at all, nor will there be in ME3, despite the inventory system being part of all the great RPGs of the past. There's an inventory in Skyrim, and I don't have any problem with it, and its still a great game. Why can't I have an inventory full of awesome weapons and armor in ME3 as well?

But no, I respect freedom of speech. If you want to complain about something an inconsequential about how a character dresses in a game when you can be shot in the face and shrug it off, that's your business.

[onelifecrisis]

PPF65 wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

PPF65 wrote...

I don't see how its besides the point. If you want realism, then you accept ALL of the realism...

And all the contradictions that come with it? That doesn't make any sense. You've said yourself that if we have "full realism" (by your definiton) then we have to have insta-deaths. I'm guessing you don't actually want insta-deaths, which means you've chosen to accept that particular lack of realism rather than reject the codex. What makes your choice more valid than the inverse?

PPF65 wrote...

And the reason the bullets don't actually move at the speed of light in actual game play is because we wouldn't see them move, like you said, we see the tracers.

Nope, we see the bullets. Don't believe me? Get heightened adrenaline rush and dodge enemy fire.

Now you're missing the point. If the bullets in the game actually moved at 1% of the speed of light during gameplay, we wouldn't see them. I know that Adrenaline Rush lets you dodge bullets in ME2, again, not the point.

How is it not the point? The codex tells me one thing, my eyes tell me another. Given that choice, with any book, I'm always going to trust my eyes. If you'd rather trust a book that's your choice, but you have no basis for declaring it the "correct" choice.

Also, see my edit above re: "tracers".

PPF65 wrote...

I'm playing a sci-fi game.

Actually it's a space opera, not that it makes any difference to this discussion.

PPF65 wrote...

Why not complain about real problems, like...

Now you're just deflecting.

[Terror_K]

For me the main issues come down to basic immersion. ME2 may have had quite a few issues, but one of the things that got me into the original game (despite its own faults) was the immersion. They did such a good job of making a solid, interesting and overall believable sci-fi universe. ME2 was too readily willing to throw logic and consistency out the window for the sake of being "cool" too often. ME1 did such a good job of keeping things consistent and believable by making sure the outfits made sense and that everybody who should need proper protection did. ME2 just threw it down the toilet for cleavage and so that characters could look unique, and it pulled me out of the universe all the time. So often I restricted myself to using only Garrus, Tali and Legion because I was sick of seeing breathing masks and exposed skin in areas where it just didn't make sense, let alone in combat situations. It's hard to take the universe seriously when you read a novel that makes a big deal about The Migrant Fleet being strict on decontamination procedures to protect them, only to be followed up by a game where you've got a woman wandering amongst them wearing only a breathing mask and some nipple-straps. And again, you can't have a main plot point being Shepard being killed by exposure to the dangers of space, and then treat it so casually for the rest of the entire game.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:24 .

[Someone With Mass]

If Mass Effect was aiming to be "realistic" (or as realistic as you can be in a setting like this) then the Normandy would just look like it disappears whenever it enters FTL flight because then it's traveling faster than the speed of light, and our eyes shouldn't be able to detect that since there shouldn't be any light reflection.

Then again, that'd be pretty boring to look at.

[bleetman]

It's personally going to depend on whether that mark on the chestplate turns out to be an alliance/spectre/whatever symbol or a Boob Window.

If it's the latter, oh boy.

Modifié par bleetman, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:48 .

[Swampthing500]

Someone With Mass wrote...

If Mass Effect was aiming to be "realistic" (or as realistic as you can be in a setting like this) then the Normandy would just look like it disappears whenever it enters FTL flight because then it's traveling faster than the speed of light, and our eyes shouldn't be able to detect that since there shouldn't be any light reflection.

Then again, that'd be pretty boring to look at.

The conventions of Sci-fi means some aspects are acceptable in terms of moving away from realism, whilst others are not.

In this case, dressing like a call-girl falls into the "not" side.

Modifié par Swampthing500, 25 novembre 2011 - 09:51 .

[GodWood]

To avoid this whole 'realism' debate just say verisimilitude.

[Adugan]

She sorta looks like Mila Kunis is ME3.

[mineralica]

I don't think versions 2 and 3 are "armor" - they're too similar to her casual outfit. Look at gloves, shoulder pads, evolution of knee pads from top part of boots, lines on "jacket". As for me, the rightest was the initial version, then someone decided to add white pants and separate catsuit-like detail into jacket and pants, then there probably was stage looking like final "jacket outfit" but standing like earlier ones and probably having similar hair, and the most left one is the glossed final version, hence the different pose, reflective material instead of mat and another hairstyle.

Modifié par mineralica, 25 novembre 2011 - 10:00 .

[Terror_K]

GodWood wrote...

To avoid this whole 'realism' debate just say verisimilitude.

Well, the thing is, every IP has its own rules and guidelines that help define its style and boundaries. A common rule of realism that's broken in sci-fi is sound in space for instance, and each sci-fi usually has its own pseudo-science to get around the otherwise impossible. The important thing that it remains consistent to itself and overall that the fans can take it seriously and not just see it as a silly farce.

Unfortunately, speaking personally, some factors of ME2 erred more on the side of the farcical due to contradiction, inconsistency and just being plain silly. IMO of course, but the series started out as something I considered a mature and fairly tight new sci-fi universe, and certain more recent aspects seemed to have leaned more to the riduculous for the sake of being cool than sticking to established rules.

[onelifecrisis]

*thoughts slowly organise*

Oh. Note to self: don't mix Glenfiddich with WKD and expect to think clearly the next day.