DuskWarden wrote...
Does it not take away some of the import of your choices, if you know that they won't have an effect in later games? E.G. You carefully think about who to put on the throne in Orzammar, unless your character doesn't care, but would you care if you knew that decision wouldn't have an impact in future games? Now purely in the context of the game, your character doesn't know that his decision won't matter, but it' still detract from the experience for me. It might not for others I guess. I like the idea that even if we can't import our PCs through the games, we can play in a world shaped by our previous PCs.
I agree. However, the number of choices from previous games will only continue to grow. As time passes, these choices will either need an ever-increasing amount of custom content and effort for a smaller and smaller niche of players (a Bhelen supporter who had the Dalish killed by Werewolves but performed the US whilst having Allistair crowned king and choose to have Hawke side with the Chantry would have a very specific subset of decisions to account for), or these choices will ultimately result in the same net outcome (see the Rachni in ME3).
There is no good way to do it. If there was an easy way, Bioware would have already done it. As is, the future is only cameos and codex references for monumental changes while we completely avoid certain areas, topics and characters... or hand waving to make the decisions the same (i.e., the OGB was still born even if your Warden didn't sleep with Morrigan, because Morrigan had a Plan B... also, again see the Rachni in ME3).
OR... Bioware can say that the choice outcome will be X, no import flags to account for, period. Only then will they be able to offer the same level of choice (or, even more ideally, even MORE choice) than we saw in DA:O. Otherwise, I fear that DA2's choices will only be the beginning of hedged story-telling.
This is only my opinion, but it is one based out of a realistic analysis of the ever-increasing amount of choices and consequences one would have to manage going forward with an ever-growing import flag list.
DuskWarden wrote...
Anti-matter is just the term we stick onto particles of idential mass but opposite charge and spin (and conservation numbers). Anti particles and particles don't annihilate one another by virtue of being called 'anti', they do so because of their properties - (charge, spin etc.) You could dispense with the name 'anti' altogether and call the positron the deltatron or whatever. It wouldn't change anything about it. classifying a certain set of particles as antimatter is just convenient because of their interactions with another set of particles; 'normal' matter. There's nothing conceptually different about anti-matter and matter, they are just two sets of particles, and you happen to be able to pair most of those particles up. So anti-matter does exist, because we defined certain particles which we are virtually certain exist, to be so.
I realize this. But just because two particles of opposite spin collide, it doesn't mean they would destroy each other.
Attributing "spin" and "charge" as magical forces that can do magical things is an oversimplification of a much more complex process, a process that we don't understand currently. What is "positive"? Why does a proton have it? Why does it repel a "negative" charged particle? These questions aren't answered by physics today, the only concern is that the math adds up. And that is a huge issue.
Back in Einstein's day, the math they had answered every question but a handful, many scientists at the end of the 19th century postulated there was little else humanity could learn about the fundamental nature of the universe. After all, we had protons, electrons and neutrons... what else did we need? The answer to that question is obvious to us now, but it belies the same logic we have today - we "know" things to be true, but when someone asks simple questions, it throws the whole idea of us "knowing" anything into jeopardy.
All that aside, the most proof-positive experiments about anti-matter involve supposed "positron emmission." Whereby, it is said, that a proton will actually emit a positron and become a neutron. This, despite the fact that a neutron has more mass than a proton, which makes the concept that emitting any particle is ludicrous, unless you believe that being an anti-matter particle will automatically mean it has anti-mass, experiences anti-gravity and can be the exact opposite of all things we know true for all other matter we have experimented with... which is assuming a lot for an unobservable particle.
I say unobservable because any anti-matter, by its very own ascribed nature, will be destroyed within fractions of moments. It is untrackable through any microscope (since, after all, the only way to see the tiniest of particles is with an electron microscope, which is, obviously, normal matter, and would destory the anti-matter in question).
Regardless, the only difference between a standard electron capture (where an electron from a higher valence enters into the realm of the nucleus and collides with a proton to form a neutron) is that an electron capture normally releases an X-ray and a supposed "positron emmission" emits an neutrino, along with a surplus of energy. If no electrons are lost out of the valence, then its IMPOSSIBLE that an electron from outside the atom could have broken through the valence fields and gotten to the nucleus in a manner that creates a different end result... right? Oh wait, that's not totally unthinkable at all. Much more likely than the fact that we have created a type of matter that looks good on a mathematician's formula, where everything can be balanced out as positive and negative, desptie the fact that these qualities are totally constructs that defy an abject look at the universe, not to mention are completely at odds with our present situation - since if anti-matter did exist, the universe would have been created with equal parts matter and anti-matter, which would have collided and reacted and resulted in no universe... yet obviously where are existing in a universe right now. So... that's strike one and two for anti-matter.
EDITED: Had my equations wrong, no alpha particle is emitted at all during either process.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 juin 2012 - 01:06 .
Retour en haut
