18 réponses à ce sujet

[jones81381]

I've been replaying the Mass Effect trilogy recently and something occurred to me. While exploring various solar systems we can scan planets etc and get info about them, things like orbital period, day length, and gravity. The problem, I've realized, is planets with higher or lower gravity than Earth don't actually have different gravity. Every location you can visit has normal Earth gravity, as far as the physics and combat are concerned.

 

A way I can make a clear example is with the Mako of ME 1 and its thrusters. On a planet with 1.0 Earth gravity, the Mako jumps 15 feet vertically. On a planet with .75 Earth gravity, the Mako jumps 15 feet vertically. On a planet with 1.2 Earth gravity, the Mako jumps 15 feet vertically. The planet's gravity should affect things like this and when not in the Mako we should run more slowly and fatigue faster because we're having to fight harder against the gravity. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

If you're suggesting the inverse square law should be taken into account, then I don't think the game would be very fun to play, would it?

 

P.S. I vaguely recall reading something about the Mako possessing some sort of gravity-control mechanism, but don't quote me on that one.

[SardaukarElite]

The mako has a mass effect core and is supposed to  be tweaking its mass so that it can behave like its 1g when that's convenient and ignore it when it isn't. I believe the infantry armor is supposed to do the same.

 

Of course it wouldn't work like that because changing something's mass will change how all forces act upon it.

[Oldren Shepard]

Mass Effect Field

http://masseffect.wi...ss_Effect_Field

[dgcatanisiri]

Yeah, I'll accept 'mass effect fields at play' as a handwave, given that it means that the designers don't have to build an entirely different physics engine to account for the different gravity of planets where it's lower/higher than standard. Occasionally, practical development matters trump scientific facts.

[jones81381]

Yeah, I'll accept 'mass effect fields at play' as a handwave, given that it means that the designers don't have to build an entirely different physics engine to account for the different gravity of planets where it's lower/higher than standard. Occasionally, practical development matters trump scientific facts.

 

I can accept that. Still would kinda like to see it though, maybe in a "realistic mode" where shields are weaker, health is lower, and it takes longer for health to regen and shields to recharge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've been replaying the Mass Effect trilogy recently and something occurred to me. While exploring various solar systems we can scan planets etc and get info about them, things like orbital period, day length, and gravity. The problem, I've realized, is planets with higher or lower gravity than Earth don't actually have different gravity. Every location you can visit has normal Earth gravity, as far as the physics and combat are concerned.

The planets in ME1 all list their gravity among their attributes because they were supposed to have different gravity. But then that feature got cut during developement.

All these explanations about mass effect fields are just rationalizations. The game was supposed to have different gravity conditions from planet to planet, but that feature was cut.

[goishen]

Right, but you're all forgetting the Citadel's Presidium which is kept at a .2 (of Earth's, if Earth were a 1) gravity level.  That's the gravity of the moon. 

 

I suspended my disbelief years ago, but there it is.

[N7Jamaican]

It's sci-fi. I don't everything to be realistic.  Star Wars and Star Trek, two of the most popular sci-fi franchises don't even follow this.

[wass12]

Yeah, I'll accept 'mass effect fields at play' as a handwave, given that it means that the designers don't have to build an entirely different physics engine to account for the different gravity of planets where it's lower/higher than standard. Occasionally, practical development matters trump scientific facts.

 

The force of gravity is literally a single variable in the Coalesced file.

[Sartoz]

The planets in ME1 all list their gravity among their attributes because they were supposed to have different gravity. But then that feature got cut during developement.

All these explanations about mass effect fields are just rationalizations. The game was supposed to have different gravity conditions from planet to planet, but that feature was cut.

                                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hm... I didn't know that.

 

I'd wager the reason for the cut is that the game became unplayable in different gravity fields and/or it took too much time and resources to properly code  the game mechanics. Remember when the order was given to abandon the Normandy? Moving in a NULL G environment was a pain... same with high.low gravity worlds. A unified gravity simplifies the code, reduces the cost and plays better.

 

ME:A will ignore gravity effects. Makes for a more enjoyable game.

[Queen Skadi]

Yeah, I'll accept 'mass effect fields at play' as a handwave, given that it means that the designers don't have to build an entirely different physics engine to account for the different gravity of planets where it's lower/higher than standard.

 

Uhh what? All it would take would be to change the value of the gravity variable depending on what planet you you are on, can't imagine it would be too difficult let alone impossible without building an entirely new physics engine.

[Sylvius the Mad]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

Hm... I didn't know that.

I'd wager the reason for the cut is that the game became unplayable in different gravity fields and/or it took too much time and resources to properly code the game mechanics. Remember when the order was given to abandon the Normandy? Moving in a NULL G environment was a pain... same with high.low gravity worlds. A unified gravity simplifies the code, reduces the cost and plays better.

ME:A will ignore gravity effects. Makes for a more enjoyable game.

They didn't have time to test all the different worlds' geometries with unique gravity conditions.

[Sartoz]

They didn't have time to test all the different worlds' geometries with unique gravity conditions.

                                                                                                     <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Thanks for the info.

[MrFob]

Aren't  pretty much all the planets we can land on actually fairly close to 1g?

 

In general, I also always went with the "ME field generators in our suit" headcanon. Also, the drop of for bullets should not be a big deal since they are supposed to be accelerated to a fairly high percentage of light speed and all of our encounters are at really close range (although, of course, it doesn't help that we can actually see the bullets flying from ME2 onward).

 

The whole thing with the presidium is a bit weird though, since in ME3 we no longer wear the suit there. On the other hand, it would be really annoying to have to walk through the hub like Neil Armstrong. I'd have put a line in the codex, simply saying that in the presidium they compensate with artificial gravity. Case closed.

 

I also agree that it would be interesting to play a bit with the gravity settings in ME:A. Not too much though, just on occasion. And I still want at least on Dead Space like zero-G mission please.

 

EDIT: Also, thanks for that info snippet Sylvius, I had never heard of that wither but it makes sense. I bet Eletania would not have been such a pain in the butt to drive around with different gravity settings. It may even explain some of the MAKO's clunky behavior, if they originally designed it's handling to be scale-able for different gravity environments.

[goishen]

Aren't  pretty much all the planets we can land on actually fairly close to 1g?

 

 

No.

 

They range anywhere from .5 to 3.5 (ish).  Remember that an existing world's general physical gravity was not computed as it is today.  Up until fairly recently (in the last 5-10 years) Earth's gravity was still (EDIT : fairly) geocentric in it's design.

[wass12]

 Remember that an existing world's general physical gravity was not computed as it is today.  Up until fairly recently (in the last 5-10 years) Earth's gravity was still (EDIT : fairly) geocentric in it's design.

 

Ööö... what? Who designed Earth's gravity?

[Fortlowe]

Assuming the Citadel as the galactic standard, it makes sense that most everywhere we go is very near to earth gravity. I'd wager the reason having to do with the 'Goldilocks' set of global circumstances that resulted in the evolution of humanity, as being very similar to the circumstances that spawned our galactic brethren that participate in citadel government. Gravity being amongst the most influential of that set of circumstances like atmosphere, biosphere, landscape, etc.

Essentially my meaning is: Earth like gravity is probably most conducive to the thriving development of tribally intelligent tool making bipedal omnivores. Thusly the worlds that galactic denizens of all sorts are likeliest to have long term business on will share, or at least very nearly share, the characteristic of earth like gravity, regardless of other circumstances.

[Xerxes52]

I would enjoy this. Also some zero gravity segments (with suit-based thrusters for maneuvering, much like Dead Space 3) would be really interesting as well.

 

It's not really a must have, but it's definitely one of those minor QoL improvements I'd like to see.