111 réponses à ce sujet

[LemurFromTheId]

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

[Operator m1]

 Quarian female 

[Tokenusername]

Aedolon wrote...

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

Modern militaries don't really use hardsuits.

[LemurFromTheId]

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

Modern militaries don't really use hardsuits.

You haven't noticed that the events depicted in ME3 unfold roughly 170 years in the future, in a universe where military hardsuits are apparently very common?

[Tokenusername]

Aedolon wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

Modern militaries don't really use hardsuits.

You haven't noticed that the events depicted in ME3 unfold roughly 170 years in the future, in a universe where military hardsuits are apparently very common?

A fiction universe isn't exactly the baseline of reality.

[Dalakaar]

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

Modern militaries don't really use hardsuits.

You haven't noticed that the events depicted in ME3 unfold roughly 170 years in the future, in a universe where military hardsuits are apparently very common?

A fiction universe isn't exactly the baseline of reality.

While you don't see hardsuits outside of bomb disposal in the military (Typically) they are in use by most S.W.A.T. teams and Riot Control Forces.

In a fictional universe where weapons are considerably stronger and manufacturing is relatively easy (I assume there's millions of 3d printers in the ME Universe) a hard composite armor is hardly a stretch.

[LemurFromTheId]

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Scruffaluphagus wrote...

Demolisher.

It's the closest thing to a half ways realistic looking combat gear and uniform.

You don't think kits like vanilla humans or Armiger turians have realisitc looking combat gear?

Modern militaries don't really use hardsuits.

You haven't noticed that the events depicted in ME3 unfold roughly 170 years in the future, in a universe where military hardsuits are apparently very common?

A fiction universe isn't exactly the baseline of reality.

Realism should always be considered in context of the setting. Just because it's a sci-fi setting, it doesn't mean you can throw the concept of realism out of the window, but it also doesn't mean can just ignore all the unique elements that define the setting and determine realism based on our reality.

[HusarX]

mysilentgas wrote...

Juggy because I'm a huge GODZILLA fan that's why I named him Jaeger.Destroyer because I'm a Spartan fan

Would be cool if Juggy had a sword.

[Tokenusername]

Aedolon wrote...

Realism should always be considered in context of the setting. Just because it's a sci-fi setting, it doesn't mean you can throw the concept of realism out of the window, but it also doesn't mean can just ignore all the unique elements that define the setting and determine realism based on our reality.

Realism is events being in line with reality. If reality is determined within the flexible setting of fiction then everything is realistic as long as it follows its own continuity.

[LemurFromTheId]

HusarX wrote...

mysilentgas wrote...

Juggy because I'm a huge GODZILLA fan that's why I named him Jaeger.Destroyer because I'm a Spartan fan

Would be cool if Juggy had a sword.

Personally I'd enjoy games a lot more if less design decisions were made based on what's "cool". Most gamers are adults, but generally games still seem to be meant for fourteen-year-olds...

[Catastrophy]

I don't care much for the looks of the outfit - I pay attention to the animations, dodges mostly.
They have to look good and be effective.

Considering that the Asari, Human Vanilla People, the Fury, Shadow and AIU are my favourites. Wait, they're mostly females? I guess some looks also are factored in. Subconciously.

Great dodge have also the Vorcha, but the bloodlust cry often comes untimely.
Turian rocket dodge is also nice but it has me bump into object edges too often.
Palm Cannon man is similar to the Fury but I often play off host and he don't have no AF.
Volus are tricky but I still like their dodge.

[HusarX]

Aedolon wrote...

HusarX wrote...

mysilentgas wrote...

Juggy because I'm a huge GODZILLA fan that's why I named him Jaeger.Destroyer because I'm a Spartan fan

Would be cool if Juggy had a sword.

Personally I'd enjoy games a lot more if less design decisions were made based on what's "cool". Most gamers are adults, but generally games still seem to be meant for fourteen-year-olds...

gtk

[LemurFromTheId]

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Realism should always be considered in context of the setting. Just because it's a sci-fi setting, it doesn't mean you can throw the concept of realism out of the window, but it also doesn't mean can just ignore all the unique elements that define the setting and determine realism based on our reality.

Realism is events being in line with reality. If reality is determined within the flexible setting of fiction then everything is realistic as long as it follows its own continuity.

Precisely. Unrealistic elements are those that don't follow the setting's own continuity, for example the squadmates in ME2 not wearing any kind of combat armor. The setting, of course, has to provide some explanation for phenomena that contradic our own reality, you can't just start suddenly throwing magic around without letting the audience understand why it's plausible or without first providing clues that such things might be possible. It's all about consistency.

Vanilla human armors are consistent with everything we know about the ME3 universe. They make sense in context of the lore of the universe. They don't really even contradict with anything we might assume based on our reality, for example the proportions are such that an actual human being could fit inside them an function properly - unlike many other sci-fi armors from other games where the shoulders are so wide that a man inside could never actually use his arms. That's why they are realistic.

Modifié par Aedolon, 06 décembre 2013 - 10:27 .

[Cohen le Barbare]

I like the cabal and the talon merc. Paladin comes third. I love his shield.

[LemurFromTheId]

HusarX wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

HusarX wrote...

mysilentgas wrote...

Juggy because I'm a huge GODZILLA fan that's why I named him Jaeger.Destroyer because I'm a Spartan fan

Would be cool if Juggy had a sword.

Personally I'd enjoy games a lot more if less design decisions were made based on what's "cool". Most gamers are adults, but generally games still seem to be meant for fourteen-year-olds...

gtk

I had to let that out. I feel better now.

[Tokenusername]

Aedolon wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Realism should always be considered in context of the setting. Just because it's a sci-fi setting, it doesn't mean you can throw the concept of realism out of the window, but it also doesn't mean can just ignore all the unique elements that define the setting and determine realism based on our reality.

Realism is events being in line with reality. If reality is determined within the flexible setting of fiction then everything is realistic as long as it follows its own continuity.

Precisely. Unrealistic elements are those that don't follow the setting's own continuity, for example the squadmates in ME2 not wearing any kind of combat armor. The setting, of course, has to provide some explanation for phenomena that contradic our own reality, you can't just start suddenly throwing magic around without letting the audience understand why it's plausible or without first providing clues that such things might be possible. It's all about consistency.

Vanilla human armors are consistent with everything we know about the ME3 universe. They make sense in context of the lore of the universe. They don't really even contradict with anything we might assume based on our reality, for example the proportions are such that an actual human being could fit inside them an function properly - unlike many other sci-fi armors from other games where the shoulders are so wide that a man inside could never actually use his arms. That's why they are realistic.

I really don't care for female armors have specific breast protrutions, just to mention a point.
But realism is from a singular reality, ours. A fiction following its own rules doesn't make it realistic, because those rules are entirely flexable. Superman can shoot lasers out of his eyes. Within the rules of that universe, that is perfectly acceptable. That doesn't make heat vision realistic. Plausibility and realism aren't the same thing.

[LemurFromTheId]

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Aedolon wrote...

Realism should always be considered in context of the setting. Just because it's a sci-fi setting, it doesn't mean you can throw the concept of realism out of the window, but it also doesn't mean can just ignore all the unique elements that define the setting and determine realism based on our reality.

Realism is events being in line with reality. If reality is determined within the flexible setting of fiction then everything is realistic as long as it follows its own continuity.

Precisely. Unrealistic elements are those that don't follow the setting's own continuity, for example the squadmates in ME2 not wearing any kind of combat armor. The setting, of course, has to provide some explanation for phenomena that contradic our own reality, you can't just start suddenly throwing magic around without letting the audience understand why it's plausible or without first providing clues that such things might be possible. It's all about consistency.

Vanilla human armors are consistent with everything we know about the ME3 universe. They make sense in context of the lore of the universe. They don't really even contradict with anything we might assume based on our reality, for example the proportions are such that an actual human being could fit inside them an function properly - unlike many other sci-fi armors from other games where the shoulders are so wide that a man inside could never actually use his arms. That's why they are realistic.

I really don't care for female armors have specific breast protrutions, just to mention a point.
But realism is from a singular reality, ours. A fiction following its own rules doesn't make it realistic, because those rules are entirely flexable. Superman can shoot lasers out of his eyes. Within the rules of that universe, that is perfectly acceptable. That doesn't make heat vision realistic. Plausibility and realism aren't the same thing.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree then. Superman's not a very good example though, as his powers have never been explained with anything but the vaguest hand-waving and his power have never had any consistency whatsoever (as far as I'm aware). But in principle, if we accept Superman's premise, then yes, his powers are realistic in that setting - but Lois Lane suddenly being able to outmuscle a weight-lifter without any explanation would be unrealistic.

Words are meant to serve a purpose. If we follow your definition of realism, the word becomes useless when discussing fiction. With my definition it still retains its purpose and we can still discuss realism in the context of the setting.

EDIT: I agree about the female armors. They are relatively well done in ME, however - compared to many other games.

Modifié par Aedolon, 06 décembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[Cohen le Barbare]

ME3 walks a fine line between science-fiction and space-opera anyway.

[tonton_guitou]

asari... for ass vision reason

Modifié par guigui_daddy_92, 06 décembre 2013 - 12:41 .

[Edorian27]

Good old Human Female Engineer

[Deerber]

Fury. Dat ass.

[ClydeInTheShell]

Operator m1 wrote...

 Quarian female 

Needs moar visual evidence for emphasis.

[VaultingFrog]

ClydeInTheShell wrote...

Operator m1 wrote...

 Quarian female 

Needs moar visual evidence for emphasis.

Agreed

[Baby Quarian]

Modifié par Baby Quarian, 06 décembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[Kinom001]

Phoenix Adept/Vanguard, Talon Merc and vanilla Human Engineers.