wait a second....
#26
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 04:49
#27
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 04:49
#28
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 04:51
#29
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 05:09
#30
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 05:48
#31
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:05
HelpingFR wrote...
(I though no spoiler allowed in the general discussion)
If you watch more carefully the relay's destruction in ME3, we can see the Energy of the mass relays is "transferred" with the "projection". So, there is no energy into the mass relays when they explode. Not like in ME2 where the relay is destroyed, freeing all the energy, making the destruction of the system.
This.
#32
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:09
no?
#33
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:13
It is a different kind of explosion since the Arrival Relay was destroyed by an asteriod, which sent out its energy in a very distructive way. The other Relays were given a signal to harmlessly release of their engery at a slower rate and caused implosions to happen.Cthulhu42 wrote...
It's a "different kind of explosion", apparently. No, that doesn't make sense to me either.
#34
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:14
Yet you could give that label to Biotics.AcidGlow wrote...
space magic
#35
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:19
I love the irony here based on the "overload" example is the minium readiness of the Destroy option.f0rmaldehyde wrote...
cparham7 wrote...
this.magnetite wrote...
I think they said the relays overloaded. Lot different than smashing an asteroid into a relay. Nothing was destroyed though. Planets are still in one piece.
I personally take the difference to mean that the energy from the relay's was used for the crucible wave. It kinda makes sense if you think about it and not just blame space magic or artistic integrity for something that isn't spelled out for you.
Since you people CLEARLY dont know the difference...
#36
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 06:40
Elvira the Dark wrote...
well, in the game the mass relays explosion or energy dispersment do not destroy the solar systems so i guess that's that. in other words, bioware says that the mass relays don't destroy the solar systems at the end of the game, so they don't.
Yep. It's amazing how many people thought they actually did destroy the systems, even when we see that they didn't.
Just out of curiosity, how come it took you so long to come up with this? You've been doing ME3 hate professionally for weeks, and this was one of the early criticisms.
Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juin 2012 - 08:47 .
#37
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 08:19
#38
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 08:40
Cthulhu42 wrote...
It's a "different kind of explosion", apparently. No, that doesn't make sense to me either.
Do you work with explosives or have any understanding of the science behind them? There are lots of ways something can "explode."
The explosion in the DLC was an uncontrolled rupture of the fully charged mass effect core. All the energy radiated outwards in a sphere.
The explosion in ME3 was not like that. First, there was that huge energy discharge that surged towards the rest of the relays in a beam. Much like shaped charge detonations, that alone is sufficient justification for the rest of the detonation to be minimally damaging. Secondly, this was not an uncontrolled rupture. This was, apparently, a self destruct command. There are any number of ways that the energy could be bled into the environment in less than catastrophic fashion. This, btw, is the main reason why different levels of war assets could affect the kind of explosion that you get. The lower the war assets, the more damage the crucible takes and the less able it is to modulate the energy release.
Is any of this explicitly explained in the existing game? No. Does it require some kind of space magic? Definitely not. The same principles are widely applied in construction work today.
#39
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 08:48
#40
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 08:51
FitScotGaymer wrote...
Clearly you guys have never heard of such a thing as a Controlled Explosion.
It's real science people.
In space?
#41
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 08:52
#42
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 10:14
AcidGlow wrote...
space magic
Can I haz spaze muffin?
#43
Posté 20 juin 2012 - 10:19





Retour en haut







