283 réponses à ce sujet

[Vespervin]

Killroy, last time I checked, swords are in the Mass Effect lore. You just need to lean how to deal with it. If BioWare wants to bring them back, I would welcome it. If not, whatever - I'm fine with running around using my Omni-blade, which would act the same as a sword. Either way, I'm satisfied.

 

Also, don't put 'yeah, sure, whatever' into quotes because I never said that. You're taking something simple and overreacting. That's your problem, not mine.

 

Cheers.

 

FYI, I was fine with the Katana being added to Saints Row 2. SR3 and 4 are terrible games.

 

I obviously wouldn't mind it, you're obviously 100% against it. Nothing will change that, so to continue debating this is pointless. legionabandonthread.gif

[Former_Fiend]

You could justify anything being in the game by saying "it's just an option." Why not add optional superpowers, like flight and laser eyes? Or big, floppy fallace weapons like in Saints Row? Or lightsabers? Or Batman?

 

If your design philosophy is "yeah, sure. Whatever" you're making crap. "Yeah, sure. Whatever" is how we got Red, Blue and Green.

 

We have optional super powers. They're called biotics. 

 

I don't see giving us more options for character builds beyond "Shoot the enemy" is inherently bad game design for an RPG, even if that RPG is heavily shooter-based. 

[Killroy]

Killroy, last time I checked, swords are in the Mass Effect lore. You just need to lean how to deal with it. If BioWare wants to bring them back, I would welcome it. If not, whatever - I'm fine with running around using my Omni-blade, which would act the same as a sword. Either way, I'm satisfied

 
You know what else is in the lore? The ending to ME3. Should everyone be alright with that being part of the series going forward?
 

We have optional super powers. They're called biotics.

 

[Former_Fiend]

I'll tell you what.  You stop equating people with swords as back up weapons with the ME3 endings, I'll stop equating them with biotics. 

[Killroy]

I'll tell you what.  You stop equating people with swords as back up weapons with the ME3 endings, I'll stop equating them with biotics. 

 

My argument makes logical sense. Your's is intellectually dishonest.

[Former_Fiend]

My argument is based in the idea that settings grow and evolve. That writers and designers are allowed to have new ideas after the initial starting point. Some of those ideas are going to be good, some of them are going to be bad. Some good ideas are going to be implemented poorly. But at the end of the day the setting is allowed to grow and be a different beast than it was at the starting point. And I think that not holding one concept within the setting to the same standard as another because one came first is biased. 

[Ahglock]

My argument is based in the idea that settings grow and evolve. That writers and designers are allowed to have new ideas after the initial starting point. Some of those ideas are going to be good, some of them are going to be bad. Some good ideas are going to be implemented poorly. But at the end of the day the setting is allowed to grow and be a different beast than it was at the starting point. And I think that not holding one concept within the setting to the same standard as another because one came first is biased.

Yes the setting should grow and new ideas and things should come in the setting. But the ideas should come from within the settings frameworks. I wouldn't add Shadowrun magic into mass effect just because they have biotic magic. That would be an add or new item from outside and opposed to the setting. Come up with ideas from within the setting that makes melee viable and I have no issues. Tack it on because lol it's cool and I'm not fine with it.

[Former_Fiend]

I don't see a few people using swords as back up weapons as being that. 

 

It might not be sensible or logical but the fact is people aren't sensible and logical by nature. They make poor or at least sub-optimal choices based on personal preference, style, and any number of other factors. 

[Killroy]

I don't see a few people using swords as back up weapons as being that. 

 

It might not be sensible or logical but the fact is people aren't sensible and logical by nature. They make poor or at least sub-optimal choices based on personal preference, style, and any number of other factors. 

 

...why support stupid things?

[Former_Fiend]

Because otherwise it just becomes homogeneous and boring. When all you care about is optimization, when the only thing that matters is what's the most logical, sensible, effective way to handle a situation, then it all comes down to the same thing. I might as well be playing a rail shooter. 

 

I'd embrace the chance to let our character go with the illogical, the nonsensical, and the impractical. To give them more character, more of an individual identity. Make them more than just a robot programmed to be the best.

[The Real Pearl #2]

Here's a question for the pro-katana people: If you can get close enough to impale someone with a katana, why wouldn't you just get that close and press a gun to your target, avoiding their kinetic barriers, and fire? A sword literally has no advantage over simply pressing a gun directly onto your target before firing so why use it.

As much as I love teleporting to enemies and pretending i'm in a stealth game with my cool physics breaking sword i can't help but agree with you more. What about reapers and collectors? Phantoms are ridicolus one shotting a krogan. but what about the n7 shadow slashing at the fleshy husks? Is that more realistic than slashing at Cerberus goons? and will adding heat to the sword (Speccing into rank 6 Armour damage) Make any difference to it being realistic? A plasma sword or something like a lightsaber will make more sense except less *slash every material in the galaxy*.

[wass12]

Why is an explicit codex entry on the specs of swords required? That's an absurd argument. The codex doesn't state many things that happen according to the laws of the universe in game. It can't, since it isn't 50,000 pages long. Examples in gameplay don't mean the lore is not being applied inconsistently, in the same way that the entire galactic fleet coming through the relay in a second for the final battle is not suddenly not inconsistent with Codex descriptions of such a thing requiring several days. It can be a Retcon, but that doesn't make it not inconsistent, it just means that previous lore is explicitly discarded. ME universe physics supposedly operate on the same rules as ours with the exception of Element Zero. Since the mall ninja blades are not described as manipulating "mass effect fields" to increase their force by a factor of several thousand times while simultaneously increasing human muscle and bone strength by the same amount, or whatever other magic to do what they demonstratably shouldn't be able to do, they are inconsistent by the rest of the rules of the universe.

 
No, they don't:
 

Quote

Element zero can increase or decrease the mass of a volume of space-time when subjected to an electrical current. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect.

 
Now this, this cornerstone of lore, this base explanation of everything based on mass effect, this is total bullsh*t. Electric current is the movement of charged particles (electrons or ions) between two places with different electric potentials, in order to equalize said potentials. Potential doesn't have a predefined zero level, so depending on your chosen frame of reference, the same process could be described as X charge flowing in this direction, or -X charge moving in the opposite one. "Positive current" could either mean the amount of current (charged particles), in which case, "negative current" makes as much sense as an object that's -1 meter wide, or refer to (positive) ions in electrolytes moved by the potential difference - which cannot be applied to solid conductors or when the system cannot be approximated by a tube filled with said electrolyte. Like the ships' mass effect core or the eezo nodes of biotics.

 

And no, it's not a "neccessary contrivance." The existence of eezo is a neccessary contrivance. But saying that an electric current is negative or positive is nonsensical (except in the confines of arbitrarily chosen coordinate systems - but saying that this can effect mass is like saying that you can invert gravity by standing on your head.), we know that since at least Maxwell. 

 

Well, I know that, and maybe you know that, but whoever wrote that codex article certainly didn't know that.

 

Point is, reality cannot be used as a yardstick for the lore, because applying it consistently would result almost all of the lore being discarded, since its cornerstone, the very namesake of the series, is based on not just a numerical impossibility, not on a big lie placed outside of our circle of knowledge, but straight-up nonsense contradicting very basic levels of physics. Therefore, the lore can be only inconsistent internally (or being, as a whole, inconsistent with reality). And since you yourself admit that in the lore, there are no conflicting accounts of swords' effectiveness on armor, I must conclude that they are not lore-breaking.

 

Now, you can spend another 10 000 characters on how the melee weapons are unrealistic, and they will be kept ignored because I never argued that they weren't. "Unrealistic" and "lore-braking" are two separate things, and the latter doesn't apply here. The melee weapons are not in contradiction with other elements of the narrative, and make sense in-universe. You can insist on how they shouldn't on the basis of realism, but the creators of Mass Effect clearly didn't cared about realism on this issue, and you trying to impose it is nothing more that writing fanfiction.

 

EDIT: ... but the line between acceptable and unacceptable unrealism will have no objective basis.

[wass12]

Here's a question for the pro-katana people: If you can get close enough to impale someone with a katana, why wouldn't you just get that close and press a gun to your target, avoiding their kinetic barriers, and fire? A sword literally has no advantage over simply pressing a gun directly onto your target before firing so why use it.

That's simple. The hardsuit's automatic medical system tries to apply medi-gel to any wound, sealing the hole and healing the damage. With the pinprick-sized holes from the gun, easy. A meterlong gash across the torso, not so much. And while there are known cases of people surviving headshots, there is no record of someone surviving a decapitation.

[wass12]

Phantoms are ridicolus one shotting a krogan. 

 

Just want to point out that lethality of the Phantom's sword comes from being coated with toxins. There is even a sidequest about finding an antidote.

[Quarian Master Race]

 

 
No, they don't:
 

 

And no, it's not a "neccessary contrivance." The existence of eezo is a neccessary contrivance. But saying that an electric current is negative or positive is nonsensical (except in the confines of arbitrarily chosen coordinate systems - but saying that this can effect mass is like saying that you can invert gravity by standing on your head.), we know that since at least Maxwell. 

 

Well, I know that, and maybe you know that, but whoever wrote that codex article certainly didn't know that.

 

Point is, reality cannot be used as a yardstick for the lore, because applying it consistently would result almost all of the lore being discarded, since its cornerstone, the very namesake of the series, is based on not just a numerical impossibility, not on a big lie placed outside of our circle of knowledge, but straight-up nonsense contradicting very basic levels of physics. Therefore, the lore can be only inconsistent internally (or being, as a whole, inconsistent with reality). And since you yourself admit that in the lore, there are no conflicting accounts of swords' effectiveness on armor, I must conclude that they are not lore-breaking.

 

Now, you can spend another 10 000 characters on how the melee weapons are unrealistic, and they will be kept ignored because I never argued that they weren't. "Unrealistic" and "lore-braking" are two separate things, and the latter doesn't apply here. The melee weapons are not in contradiction with other elements of the narrative, and make sense in-universe. You can insist on how they shouldn't on the basis of realism, but the creators of Mass Effect clearly didn't cared about realism on this issue, and you trying to impose it is nothing more that writing fanfiction.

Have you never heard of semiconductors? Charge carriers can totally be positive or negative depending on the dopant used (albiet you could technically describe the difference as arbitrary in theoretical if not practical terms). This doesn't even get into the potential and (as of modern science) very unpredictable quantum physics effects on electrical charges (and I'm guessing that a physics defying magic element is going to produce some weird effects on quantum mechanics).

Electrical engineering and physics is a lot more complex than slavishly applying Ohm's law independent of other conditions. Classical electrodynamics isn't particularly useful in this instance.

 

This is in no way comparable to the absurdity of the ME katanas. Unless "monomolecular" has nothing to do with molecules and everything to do with more mass effect physics defying nonsense. Even then, I don't understand how the swords break from a simple punch but don't break when impacting armor with the kinetic force of a lorry, or how the people with wristbones of made of Wolverine's adamantium and nuclear powered synthetic muscles who have to keep hold of them in such impacts are capable of doing so (or why they are bothering with a sword at all when they could physically rip someone's head off, armored or not, with very little effort at the required strength level to make the swords effective).

[wass12]

 

 

Have you never heard of semiconductors? Charge carriers can totally be positive or negative depending on the dopant used (albiet you could technically describe the difference as arbitrary in theoretical if not practical terms). This doesn't even get into the potential and (as of modern science) very unpredictable quantum physics effects on electrical charges (and I'm guessing that a physics defying magic element is going to produce some weird effects on quantum mechanics).

Electrical engineering and physics is a lot more complex than slavishly applying Ohm's law independent of other conditions. Classical electrodynamics isn't particularly useful in this instance.

 

This is in no way comparable to the absurdity of the ME katanas. Unless "monomolecular" has nothing to do with molecules and everything to do with more mass effect physics defying nonsense. Even then, I don't understand how the swords break from a simple punch but don't break when impacting armor with the kinetic force of a lorry, or how the people with wristbones of made of Wolverine's adamantium and nuclear powered synthetic muscles who have to keep hold of them in such impacts are capable of doing so (or why they are bothering with a sword at all when they could physically rip someone's head off, armored or not, with very little effort at the required strength level to make the swords effective).

 

 

Congratulations! You absolutely failed to address my main argument and continued on proving a point I never disputed!

[The Real Pearl #2]

That's simple. The hardsuit's automatic medical system tries to apply medi-gel to any wound, sealing the hole and healing the damage. With the pinprick-sized holes from the gun, easy. A meterlong gash across the torso, not so much. And while there are known cases of people surviving headshots, there is no record of someone surviving a decapitation.

You can decapitate an enemy by simply shooting them in the head with a shotgun or any other high caliber weapon,Aka splattering their brains. So the benefit of decapitation is trumped by a shotgun. 

[Killroy]

Because otherwise it just becomes homogeneous and boring. When all you care about is optimization, when the only thing that matters is what's the most logical, sensible, effective way to handle a situation, then it all comes down to the same thing. I might as well be playing a rail shooter. 
 
I'd embrace the chance to let our character go with the illogical, the nonsensical, and the impractical. To give them more character, more of an individual identity. Make them more than just a robot programmed to be the best.

Logical=boring? No matter what? What universe do you live in?

That's simple. The hardsuit's automatic medical system tries to apply medi-gel to any wound, sealing the hole and healing the damage. With the pinprick-sized holes from the gun, easy. A meterlong gash across the torso, not so much. And while there are known cases of people surviving headshots, there is no record of someone surviving a decapitation.

Except no sword could cut a meter-long gash in the armor in Mass Effect. It would require a lightsaber.

Just want to point out that lethality of the Phantom's sword comes from being coated with toxins. There is even a sidequest about finding an antidote.

That toxin takes days to kills. The Phantoms instantly kill with their sync animations.

[Former_Fiend]

What I want, ultimately, is to have options to build my character in a way that is completely different from someone else's character of the same class, and I see the multiplayer classes as good templates for those options. I'd like the option to build a soldier using either the standard ammo/grenade powers or build one off of the Destroyer's battle suit, or even hybrid the two. I don't particularly care for the standard engineer class, but if I'm able to build one in the vein of the Talon Mercenary, that might get me to give that class a try. I don't care for the standard sentinel, but if I'm able to build something like a N7 Paladin, I'd give that class a try.

 

If that involves some options others may consider nonsensical like a sword, then I'm fine with that.

[Sidney]

Oddly enough I had a bayonet in a world with guns. That for all practical purposes gave me crappy spear which meant me and your average caveman would have been on the same tek level in 1995 . Less than optimal doesn't mean unused. Those making that argument, well I have no idea what they are trying to say. I was in a CQB scenario where 4 armed guys with assault rifles were in a bad way because 2 guys without working firearms attacked us and in the battlespace there wasn't room to clear for a shot so all that fancy bullet technology faded away and we wound up getting very old school in the situation.

Thing is in 1995 spears are less practical than a sword in ME universe because one bullet stops a guy with a spear whereas with shields/armor/general game magic you can actually close to use the darn thing without dying.

[Laughing_Man]

Oddly enough I had a bayonet in a world with guns. That for all practical purposes gave me crappy spear which meant me and your average caveman would have been on the same tek level in 1995 . Less than optimal doesn't mean unused. Those making that argument, well I have no idea what they are trying to say. I was in a CQB scenario where 4 armed guys with assault rifles were in a bad way because 2 guys without working firearms attacked us and in the battlespace there wasn't room to clear for a shot so all that fancy bullet technology faded away and we wound up getting very old school in the situation.

Thing is in 1995 spears are less practical than a sword in ME universe because one bullet stops a guy with a spear whereas with shields/armor/general game magic you can actually close to use the darn thing without dying.

 

Bayonet actually makes more sense than a katana.

 

It's a short backup option that does not get in the way, and is used only in a very particular set of circumstences and only if the other, better options, failed.

[Laughing_Man]

What I want, ultimately, is to have options to build my character in a way that is completely different from someone else's character of the same class, and I see the multiplayer classes as good templates for those options. I'd like the option to build a soldier using either the standard ammo/grenade powers or build one off of the Destroyer's battle suit, or even hybrid the two. I don't particularly care for the standard engineer class, but if I'm able to build one in the vein of the Talon Mercenary, that might get me to give that class a try. I don't care for the standard sentinel, but if I'm able to build something like a N7 Paladin, I'd give that class a try.

 

If that involves some options others may consider nonsensical like a sword, then I'm fine with that.

 

I agree with the spirit of your post, but why do we have to go the nonsensical route if we can have great ideas that make sense?

 

Cybernetics, power armor, laser, tech, etc.

[Former_Fiend]

I agree with the spirit of your post, but why do we have to go the nonsensical route if we can have great ideas that make sense?

 

Cybernetics, power armor, laser, tech, etc.

 

Well, largely going back to the individual taste argument, I just don't consider the sword to be as nonsensical as some others do, at least in relation to the rest of the setting.

 

I can buy a sword made out of the right materials using the right manufacturing techniques with all this advanced tech, can be made and be capable of cutting through the armor available in the setting. That may well be bullsh*t, but it's the kind of bull I can accept as part of my willing suspension of disbelief. I find it far more believable than a light saber- just on general principle of 'how can you have a laser that only reaches a yard long' logic.

 

For the record, I know the official explanation and I'm willing to accept it as part of Star Wars' internal logic, but I wouldn't be willing to accept it as part of ME's. That would be where the line is for me.

 

Hell, I'm more inclined to buy the over-manufactured and over-designed sword than I am to buy the omni-tool and omni-blade. I do buy those as part of the setting, but they're kind of technobabble handwaves in and of themselves; here's a tool you hold on your hand and you wave it over stuff and nano-machines do whatever you need it to do, including making a knife, that may or may not be on fire. 

 

And I liked the omni-blade. As for why I'd like to see a couple classes who use a sword as their back-up weapon instead of the omni-blade, well, I feel there is a reason why throughout most of human history most bladed weapons have been gripped in the hand as opposed to affixed to the wrist. I think that adds a level of versatility as opposed to the omni-blade which is more "I'm going to punch you, just with this sharp thing."

 

Went off on a bit of a tangent there. 

 

Anyway, I suppose another aspect of it for me is, for better or worse, I see these ideas as being already established in the game, and I would like to see them done well and be utilized instead of being forgotten. Even ignoring phantoms, I never had the separation some people did of the MP classes and the main game. The thought of "this is just something for multiplayer, it doesn't really exist in the lore" never entered my mind. I just saw the classes and thought "Ah, ok, this is a thing in the setting beyond the usual scope of what we've seen. That's cool."

 

So I always assumed that the MP classes were canon. Never broke my immersion. I just found it interesting to see what concepts they came up with. I liked some more than others - was never a huge fan of how the Slayer played, for instance. And I did recognize that there was some gameplay segregation going on - phantoms one-hit killing krogan despite their redundant organs and everything. But there's gameplay segregation in the games, too - I never bought that Ashley would be capable of taking out Wrex with a single shotgun blast, for instance. Is the shot gun blast a somewhat more realistic one-hit-kill than the sword? Yeah, not disputing that, but it's still a guy who can tank rockets to the face, so that's just a matter of degrees, really. 

 

Anyway, in regards to some of your suggestions; power armor and cybernetics are obviously toys I'd like to see them play around with in terms of further diversifying character builds. I'd point out that the Shadow and Slayer do explicitly use cybernetic implants to improve performance on the battlefield. I'd also think those elements are well suited towards justifying viable melee characters; there's only so much power armor and cybernetics are going to do to help you shoot. Reduce recoil, carry a bigger gun, improve aim if you have cybernetic eyes, that all helps. But at the same time that can go towards increasing speed, power, and defense in close combat situations as well.

 

I'm not looking to become a GeeDubs style Space Marine. I'm not looking to become a Metal Gear style break dancing cyberninja. I'm just looking for more options to build a character, more variety in what characters can do, more play styles becoming available and viable. Bioware's put some of those options in the series already; I don't see a reason not to run with it.

[SardaukarElite]

Well, largely going back to the individual taste argument, I just don't consider the sword to be as nonsensical as some others do, at least in relation to the rest of the setting.

 

I can buy a sword made out of the right materials using the right manufacturing techniques with all this advanced tech, can be made and be capable of cutting through the armor available in the setting. That may well be bullsh*t, but it's the kind of bull I can accept as part of my willing suspension of disbelief. I find it far more believable than a light saber- just on general principle of 'how can you have a laser that only reaches a yard long' logic.

 

For me what's important is do the rules of how things work in setting make sense.

 

In the case of swords regardless of how effective they are at killing you will always have the problem of range. A sword provides no defense against a ranged weapon (by default), it needs to close to a target to engage it, and it needs to offer some advantage that justifies bringing it over a ranged weapon (because getting shot at while closing is a pain).

 

Lightsabers make no sense scientifically but they're a solid piece of world building otherwise because they address those issues. They can deflect blaster fire (and space magic apparently), they're wielding by lightning fast space samurai, and they can cut through pretty much anything. Meanwhile Shadows just blink behind guys and deal massive damage to skip past those issues without better reasoning. I mean I still love them, but it's weak world building and gameplay wise it's kind of weird.

 

I'm okay with it because batmaning behind some Cerberus chump and shanking him is hilarious, and ME always threw aside its own rules as soon as it got distracted by a cool idea. But I think overall things would be better if they were more rigorous in applying logic both to lore and gameplay.

[Former_Fiend]

Well, aside from the implants that give them super-human speed and reflexes, not unlike the Jedi, the Shadow has the tactical cloak, so that's how you get close. Which I think works better for close combat than it does for sniping because proper sniping should be done at much greater ranges than what the games portray, anyway. If I want to play a sniper then I'd want to be working at ranges of several  hundred yards, from cover, where I don't have to worry about cloaking because I'm far enough away that they're going to have trouble spotting me regardless. 

 

As for the advantages to range in terms of "why don't you just shoot them", well, for starters, I am advocating the sword as a back up weapon and not a primary weapon. I'm not saying that the class shouldn't carry a gun. Secondly, I think part of that goes back to the preference argument; yes, shooting them from a range is the sensible way to fight. We've been doing that as our primary method of combat for hundreds of years now. If you aren't confined to close quarters, you shouldn't be using a hand to hand weapon. That's just common sense. 

 

But I'd like the option to play a character who doesn't have common sense. If that means the task is more challenging because I'm not doing it in the optimal way, that's fine.