1093 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's very utterly ridiculous. There are all sorts of different reasons that body may be damaged and die. And obviously, different sorts of damage would require different methods and resources to repair.

We already established and agreed that the act of repairing a body is nothing significant in Mass Effect (with cloning and all).

What makes Lazarus significant is the mental part of it. The fact that they managed to restore a person's personality and memories from scratch after that person being dead as dead can be. THAT is what makes Lazarus a miracle, even in the Mass Effect universe.

And that is a point that TIM does emphasize, the difficulty of nailing this aspect down.

Which is al fine and dandy, but why does the rest of the galaxy ignore the significance of succesfully pulling this off? Why is there on political uproar after the discovery that Cerberus succesfully brought a human back from the death? Why does the Council not want to bring in Shepard and Miranda for questioning about this? Why is the only future mentions of the Lazarus project stupid "I thought you were dead? - I got better" jokes?

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[David7204]

We don't know. The story doesn't say either way. In the best of circumstances of a person dying of a gunshot to the head, the answer is probably yes. But there's no way to tell for certain.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Mumba1511 wrote...

The mass effect trilogy is like the Beverly hills cop trilogy, first one was amazing, second one pretty damn good, third one is atrocious

I consider it like the Star Wars trilogy, the original.

The first one is great, the second one is even better, and the third is just so disappointing in comparison to the other two. It's still "good" but it's not the same or up to the level of its predecessor's.

ME3>ME2>ME1

[spirosz]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

[tonnactus]

AresKeith wrote...

Not for me, I would actually like the team to be equal or better 

Yep, Wrex was superior to a Soldier Shepard. Immunity and Barrier, and some usefull powers like Warp  in addition to that. Natural physical resistence. To bad the player couldnt control other characters like it was planned and showed in the E3 demo in 2006

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:35 .

[Redbelle]

Soooooo, does this mean that all those who cannot stand the idea of Shep living want him to stay dead once the opening credits are out the way? Or do they want to introduce an alternative stroyline that

1. Transition's Shep from Alliance to Cerberus without fluff story that does not make good gameplay....

2. Gives the Cerberus team the chance to meld into Shep's team while he is disorientated from being brought back to life? and

3.Gives Shep a brand new ship.

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

And I'm pretty sure people were saying ME3 overused it

[Redbelle]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People call Synthesis: "space magic". Yet, we've seen it before. Hello, Project Lazarus.

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People say your choices don't matter in ME3. Well, your choices matter in ME2 about as much as they do in 3.....if not even less.

Don't get me started on the waste of time narrative focus on the Collectors.

Shoehorned into joining Cerberus.

Taking away nearly the entire original crew (stunting character growth), and over-populating the Normandy with a bunch of comic book heroes.

People hate the Catalyst (I'll admit, I hate the fact it appears as a child. Kids are just annoying). But come on, that human Reaper fetus is just god awful. And imo, trying to come up with something different and thoughtful is better than just coming right out and saying "hey we're idiots...now abort this human Reaper fetus"



Don't get me wrong, the Suicide Mission is awesome. It just makes ME2 that much more of a drag, because I'm trying to get to the last mission. But it honestly baffles me when people trash ME3s ending, then immediately praise ME2's from a narrative standpoint. Narratively speaking, ME2's ending is the most ordinary and mediocre ending of the trilogy.

First, you kill the Reaper fetus (god, that's not a great start). Then, you get up and escape the Collector base while being chased by seeker swarms. Base explodes, we tell TIM to shove it, and then we see Reapers coming. (Okay, I'll admit that last bit gives me chills). That (for the most part) seems like the script of a Michael Bay action film. (While fun, it isn't anything to put on a pedestal)

Meanwhile, I had chills the entire time after going up the beam in ME3 (Extended Cut). We all have our preferences though.

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

[spirosz]

AresKeith wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

And I'm pretty sure people were saying ME3 overused it

Yeah.  The flow is better in ME3, I won't deny that, but it did not feel like my Shepard at all.  ME2 had the right balance of player input and autodialogue when needed, like first reaction to Thane.  

[The Heretic of Time]

spirosz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

And I'm pretty sure people were saying ME3 overused it

Yeah.  The flow is better in ME3, I won't deny that, but it did not feel like my Shepard at all.  ME2 had the right balance of player input and autodialogue when needed, like first reaction to Thane.  

I don't think it was ever the point that any Shepard was ever "our" Shepard. That's not what it ever felt like to me.

Since ME1 I already had the feeling I was dealing with BIOWARE'S Shepard, it was never MY Shepard. Shepard was only "mine" in as far as that I decided how much of a Paragon or how much of a Renegade he was, and who he wanted to engage in a relationship with (LI).

[Errationatus]

spirosz wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...

 Here's a trick:  play ME2 without the "epic" music, especially at the end.

Oddly enough, the game isn't quite as exciting without it.

Well, music done right makes anything better.  

True enough.  Personally, playing the end without "Suicide Run" blasting changes the excitement in that gameplay drastically.  Imagine the Tie Fighter fight or the Trench Run in the original Star Wars without the music, or the old Superman without John Williams' score, no music on the Terminator?  Psycho as scary? The music gives an added psychological dimension to what you play beyond simply sounding good.

I suspect that the excellent score of ME2 buttresses a rather out-of-proportion regard for the game.  Can't prove it, of course, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

And you just argued to my opinion instead of against it in your first two paragraphs. There's nothing I need to say. You said it for me.

As for your third paragraph, no gravity is not going to increase by much. But its pull will be the same. Atmosphere or no, he's going to impact heavily. But the velocity isn't going to be slowed down to the levels you think it is. Shepard will be moving at a speed of several hundred to several thousand miles per hour. And that's much more than high enough of a velocity to be fatal without anything to slow him down significantly. 

Don't add factors into my argument that are irrelevant. That's misrepresenting my argument, and it doesn't help yours by saying, "if this were the case, your argument would be false." It's not the case, and not relevant.

That was a typo I fixed. It should be 'don't' instead of 'can.'

Why don't you go Google terminal velocity? I can assure you it's nothing remotely close to 'thousands of miles per hour.'

I can assure you that terminal velocity is irrelevant to this because Shepard is moving at a greater speed than terminal velocity. It's a separate case entirely from Shepard falling from outside the atmosphere at high velocity. It's a bit too limiting in the way you're trying to use it. It would be the case if Shepard was falling from say an aircraft moving at 180 miles per hour relative to the Earth. Meanwhile Shepard is falling significantly faster due to a higher velocity from being ejected in space. Drag will increase, but Shepard is moving so fast at such a velocity that the drag he will not be able to be brought down to terminal velocity by the drag before the impact.

Also, I did just remember this. Alchera has only 83% of the atmosphere of Earth. This means the resistance on Shepard as he falls will be significantly weaker as he falls. His velocity would slow at a lesser rate than on Earth.

[David7204]

I hope I don't need to point out that having 'true' control of a character would be impossible from a technical perspective and ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

[The Night Mammoth]

Redbelle wrote...

Soooooo. What would you have made ME2 about?

The same thing, just without unnecessary stupid stuff like Lazarus, Cerberus's plan, the Collector's methods and motives, a two year leap in time, no progression in the main plot, characters that are there for no other reason than to be cool, and past characters who developed off-screen in nonsensical ways.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:42 .

[spirosz]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

spirosz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

And I'm pretty sure people were saying ME3 overused it

Yeah.  The flow is better in ME3, I won't deny that, but it did not feel like my Shepard at all.  ME2 had the right balance of player input and autodialogue when needed, like first reaction to Thane.  

I don't think it was ever the point that any Shepard was ever "our" Shepard. That's not what it ever felt like to me.

Since ME1 I already had the feeling I was dealing with BIOWARE'S Shepard, it was never MY Shepard. Shepard was only "mine" in as far as that I decided how much of a Paragon or how much of a Renegade he was, and who he wanted to engage in a relationship with (LI).

Well, I won't get into that argument with you, but I'm well aware of certain defined traits that was Bioware's, but the rest is up to perspective.  I'll just say I disagree, haha. 

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

I hope I don't need to point out that having 'true' control of a character would be impossible from a technical perspective and ridiculous from a narrative perspective.

Which comment is this directed at?

[The Heretic of Time]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

ME3>ME2>ME1

Dafuq? You're talking about gameplay right? Or did you perhaps put the arrows in the wrong direction?


Gameplay-wise:

ME3>ME2>ME1


Story-wise:

ME1>ME3>ME2

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's very utterly ridiculous. There are all sorts of different reasons that body may be damaged and die. And obviously, different sorts of damage would require different methods and resources to repair.

We already established and agreed that the act of repairing a body is nothing significant in Mass Effect (with cloning and all).

What makes Lazarus significant is the mental part of it. The fact that they managed to restore a person's personality and memories from scratch after that person being dead as dead can be. THAT is what makes Lazarus a miracle, even in the Mass Effect universe.

And that is a point that TIM does emphasize, the difficulty of nailing this aspect down.

Which is al fine and dandy, but why does the rest of the galaxy ignore the significance of succesfully pulling this off? Why is there on political uproar after the discovery that Cerberus succesfully brought a human back from the death? Why does the Council not want to bring in Shepard and Miranda for questioning about this? Why is the only future mentions of the Lazarus project stupid "I thought you were dead? - I got better" jokes?

Just to be clear, I was agreeing with you.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No worries, it was my bad.

What I should have said was: because of how much TIM emphasizes the difficulty of reconstructing Shepard's actual identity (and not just a clone), that indicates just how much of a game-changer or world-changer the Lazarus Project should actually be.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I consider it like the Star Wars trilogy, the original.

The first one is great, the second one is even better, and the third is just so disappointing in comparison to the other two. It's still "good" but it's not the same or up to the level of its predecessor's.

I appreciate you being willing to admit that, when lots aren't.

Not that my appreciation means anything, but the hyperbole (DA ][ is the worst turd to drop from the gaming world's ---!1!) gets old and I appreciate someone who can dislike something but not lambast it unjustly.

I will say that I believe it is absolutely disappointing. That's worse in my opinion. The disappointment with what could have been over what we got instead is greater with ME3 than with any other game in my opinion.

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
The planet's speed is irrelavent, because the Normandy is going to be moving relative to it. Just like sattilites.

Not really like a satellite. The Normandy wasn't in orbit -- if it had been in orbit it wouldn't have crashed. So the ship's velocity relative to the planet could have been anything between zero and orbital velocity.

Shepard will be moving at a speed of several hundred to several thousand miles per hour. And that's much more than high enough of a velocity to be fatal without anything to slow him down significantly.

Has anyone actually done the math on this? I know terminal velocity for a skydiver is only about 120 m.p.h. unless he's deliberately trying to speed up. I don't know what the drag coefficient for an unconscious body would be. We'd also need to factor in Alchera's different atmosphere and gravity.

And of course, we'd need to know what speed he actually reaches before hitting atmosphere. Anyone have a good guess what altitude the Normandy was at when it was destroyed?

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:46 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2..

The existence of autodialogue wasn't the problem.

And if we're trying to be accurate, autodialogue actually made its debut in ME1, albeit rarely.

The problem was how far it was pushed in ME3. Interactivity often felt like the exception.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 juillet 2013 - 10:44 .

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I can assure you that terminal velocity is irrelevant to this because Shepard is moving at a greater speed than terminal velocity. It's a separate case entirely from Shepard falling from outside the atmosphere at high velocity. It's a bit too limiting in the way you're trying to use it. It would be the case if Shepard was falling from say an aircraft moving at 180 miles per hour relative to the Earth. Meanwhile Shepard is falling significantly faster due to a higher velocity from being ejected in space. Drag will increase, but Shepard is moving so fast at such a velocity that the drag he will not be able to be brought down to terminal velocity by the drag before the impact.

Also, I did just remember this. Alchera has only 83% of the atmosphere of Earth. This means the resistance on Shepard as he falls will be significantly weaker as he falls. His velocity would slow at a lesser rate than on Earth.

Significantly less air resistance also means significantly less heat. Alchera also has significantly less gravity than Earth.

What evidence do you have that Shepard is moving at this supposed speed of thousands of miles per hour?

[Redbelle]

spirosz wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People blame ME3 for autodialogue. Which actually made its debut in ME2.

People use ME2 as an example of the right (subjective) way to do autodialogue, which I agree with. 

And I'm pretty sure people were saying ME3 overused it

Yeah.  The flow is better in ME3, I won't deny that, but it did not feel like my Shepard at all.  ME2 had the right balance of player input and autodialogue when needed, like first reaction to Thane.  

In addtion.

Autodialogue in the Normandy run on the collectors base allowed for a build up of tension as event's were simply allowed to happen. A good rule of thumb for auto vs manual might be to look at where the narrative pacing can be slowed, and where it has to perform as a white knuckle ride segment of the story to build dramatic tension to give the player a sense of what the stakes are.

The normandy crash on the collector base and everything before it certainly gave an impression that it was a one way trip. After that impression had ben made, the dialogue choices came back in force.

And in ME3, is anyone else a little disapointed that we never got to choose dialogue to tell everyone to proceed with the mission on the Normandy bridge? Seemed like a good chance to give the player some investment in what was going on by letting the player issue the order to charge.