1204 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

This is obviously true.

 

To speak to your example of Jack up top - I thought it was a little inorganic with her (and the Aria line - with all the dramatic dressing her F bomb received), but I chalked it up to A) Bioware's general (and well-known) issues with presentation, and B ) testing the water with their audience (and the limits of the M rating - looking at an M rated game in 2005, 2010, and 2015, it's like a different lifetime). Other characters - Zaeed, Blackwall come to mind - are a lot more natural and comfortable. A little more like they're talking as opposed to reciting dialogue. I don't know if that changed for Jack in ME3, because I can't for the life of me remember much of anything from her cameo.

They lampshaded it with her ME3 cameo by saying she has a swear jar.  Joker comments that if they took the money out of it, the Alliance could buy themselves another cruiser.

 

So maybe they did learn to dial things back a bit.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In this situation it was great, but it's not realistic in every scenario, not when your enemies are wearing heavy space-rated armor and shooting at you with automatic railguns. You also need to take into account the possibility of "disabled" enemies waking up and rejoining the fight from behind you.

With your example, shorting out their armor so it locks up would work. 

[Puddi III]

I would still love to have non-lethal ways to deal with hostiles. I just finished Feros again and being able to use the gas grenades to avoid killing the Zhu's Hope colonists is one of my favorite gameplay moments in the trilogy.

Mine was biotic pushing people off high ledges.

[Giantdeathrobot]

American society in a nutshell... well world society, but still.

Gladiator times = Armored/barely armored men and women (slaves, prisoners, deserters), fought each other and beasts to the death. Blood, guts, and nudity on occasion... Rome wasn't very sensitive  It was Rome's family past time, like Football is the US's, Brazil's is soccer, or England's Cricket... Today, see a side boob, little Joe's mother sues studio... *Force face palms*

 

Well, I for one am rather happy we aren't forcing actual people to kill themselves for entertainment anymore. 

 

As for the swearing, this is an M rated game with sex and nudity. Leaving out swearing because it's naughty would be ridiculous. Of course, I don't want every character to use ''goddamn'' as punctuation like Zaeed does, but having someone say ''goodness gracious!'' when being fired at would be very silly indeed.

[Laughing_Man]

With your example, shorting out their armor so it locks up would work. 

 

You don't think they would have defense against a tactic as simple as that?

EMP shielding is not even Sci-Fi, and an obvious weakness like what you are suggesting would be ironed out long before an armor is on the market.

[FKA_Servo]

They lampshaded it with her ME3 cameo by saying she has a swear jar.  Joker comments that if they took the money out of it, the Alliance could buy themselves another cruiser.

 

So maybe they did learn to dial things back a bit.

 

Maybe. Even in ME2, I'd hardly call it excessive, though. Just a little bit clumsy in its application (and subsequently improved).

 

I'd still rather the language suit the character, and that the cast of characters include characters like that, although I am still obviously on board with such characters (any characters really) being optional to recruit. For all the dramatics, I can't imagine the Aria scene playing out with a more lightweight term. "Don't screw with Aria" just makes me snicker.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You don't think they would have defense against a tactic as simple as that?

EMP shielding is not even Sci-Fi, and an obvious weakness like what you are suggesting would be ironed out long before an armor is on the market.

Offense always catches up and eventually surpasses defense. 

What's the harm in having the option?

[Ahglock]

They lampshaded it with her ME3 cameo by saying she has a swear jar. Joker comments that if they took the money out of it, the Alliance could buy themselves another cruiser.

So maybe they did learn to dial things back a bit.

I never noticed that her swearing was above a cultural normal. I probably swear that much or more every place but professional work environments.

[Han Shot First]

Why do you assume that?

 

Over the years there have been several threads where people have asked for the removal of profanity or nudity from the games, or toggles, but rarely has the violent content been given equal attention (if even mentioned at all) by those same posters. It also isn't uncommon to come across criticism of sex, nudity, or profanity in film, while the same people make no mention of the violence in those same TV series or films. 

 

The Fox News controversy over the first Mass Effect game is another example. The talking heads were having an aneurysm over the possibility that the player character might have seen Liara's nude backside, not that he could punch a reporter or execute a prisoner.

[Laughing_Man]

Offense always catches up and eventually surpasses defense. 

What's the harm in having the option?

 

Offense yes, non lethal options? Not so much.

 

Even today, non lethal options are much more cumbersome clumsy and unreliable in disabling attackers than lethal ones.

 

It's just not realistic for a soldier to hamstring his offensive capability and put himself and his mission in danger due to this... altruistic/pacifistic mindset.

 

If you are willing to risk your own life to this degree, in any realistic scenario you would actually die.

[Ahglock]

Offense always catches up and eventually surpasses defense.
What's the harm in having the option?

I like when games provide a non lethal option. Shadowrun for example. My issue with it though is it's the superior option when I think it should be weaker. It's not much of a moral stand when it's just easier to take people out non lethally.

If they had added advanced tasers or other disabling weapon but it did less damage than rail guns I'd of loved it.

[Laughing_Man]

If they had added advanced tasers or other disabling weapon but it did less damage than rail guns I'd of loved it.

 

It should be ineffective anyway against armor / barriers.

[Dalakaar]

Over the years there have been several threads where people have asked for the removal of profanity or nudity from the game s, or toggles) but rarely has the violent content been given equal attention (if even mentioned at all) by those same posters. It also isn't uncommon to come across criticism of sex, nudity, or profanity in film, while the same people make no mention of the violence in those same TV series or films. 

 

The Fox News controversy over the first Mass Effect game is another example. The talking heads were having an aneurysm over the possibility that the player character might have seen Liara's nude backside, not that he could punch a reporter or execute a prisoner.

We already know that video games turn the average male aged 16 - 39 into raging alcoholics that hate their neighbours and sell drugs to underaged teen girls with scholarships to prestigious universities irretrievably ruining their academic careers.

 

Sex and profanity is just too much.

[General TSAR]

I prefer swearing as long as it is not gratuitous nor surgically used.

That said it also shouldn't be over-used. Just like with nudity or portrayals of violence or gore or other mature content, it should never be gratuitous. 

Looking at you Killzone 2.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Offense yes, non lethal options? Not so much.

 

Even today, non lethal options are much more cumbersome clumsy and unreliable in disabling attackers than lethal ones.

 

It's just not realistic for a soldier to hamstring his offensive capability and put himself and his mission in danger due to this... altruistic/pacifistic mindset.

 

If you are willing to risk your own life to this degree, in any realistic scenario you would actually die.

There is such thing as non-lethal offense.

 

So it makes the game harder for the players that want it. I don't see that as a problem, since it would be more immersive as well as more rewarding(not as in it gives you more rewards, but the player could feel more accomplished). 

 

This is a video game, not reality. We would have died so many times in the Mass Effect series so far if it was reality, and we wouldn't be able to come back to life "because resources". 

 

I like when games provide a non lethal option. Shadowrun for example. My issue with it though is it's the superior option when I think it should be weaker. It's not much of a moral stand when it's just easier to take people out non lethally.

If they had added advanced tasers or other disabling weapon but it did less damage than rail guns I'd of loved it.

Shadowrun is a good example. The Deus Ex franchise is another great example. 

I agree. As I said above, I would be perfectly fine with it adding extra difficulty to the game if you pursue that kind of playstyle. 

 

And such weapons exist in the lore, like the Arc Projector heavy weapon. All you would have to do is lower the voltage and amps to a non-lethal level. 

[Ahglock]

It should be ineffective anyway against armor / barriers.

It can be as ineffective or effective as they want. How does the synaptic disrupter beam interact with shields and armor? However the writers want it to.

[Laughing_Man]

There is such thing as non-lethal offense.

 
Here is an example why it's often executed in a dumb way in video games.
 
Batman Doesn't Kill People. Right?
 
So in the last miserable iteration of the Arkham series, you can hit someone with the batmobile at 100 MPH, and they would only be "stunned"...

The exploding missiles and ammo from the Batmobile are also smart enough not to harm innocents apparently...
 
Deus ex did better, specifically because it's a stealth game (kinda), but was also rather unbelievable:
It takes one electric dart to take down an enhanced juggernaut, or half a magazine of armor piercing ammo...

 

It can be as ineffective or effective as they want. How does the synaptic disrupter beam interact with shields and armor? However the writers want it to.

I prefer it when gameplay actually makes some sort of sense, so if you have a non-leathal option that is actually superior to lethal one,

either everyone will use this option, or will modify this to be lethal...

[FKA_Servo]

It can be as ineffective or effective as they want. How does the synaptic disrupter beam interact with shields and armor? However the writers want it to.

 

This is true (and god knows I've resorted to "well, if they write it, it is so" position plenty of times on this board) but I think that having a universally non-lethal option would really stretch credibility in Mass Effect (it obviously wouldn't have worked across the board in the original trilogy). That's not to say I wouldn't love more opportunities similar to the KO grenades on Feros, or plenty of options to use diplomacy (something that seems like it will be especially appropriate in MEA, from what little we know so far).

 

It does work great in some scenarios, though. I loved my non-lethal run in Dishonored.

[Laughing_Man]

We already know that video games turn the average male aged 16 - 39 into raging alcoholics...

 

It's usually someone else's gif, but what the hell:

 

[Il Divo]

It's usually someone else's gif, but what the hell:

 

 

Any excuse to post Darker than Black is a good excuse. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 
Here is an example why it's often executed in a dumb way in video games.
 
Batman Doesn't Kill People. Right?
 
So in the last miserable iteration of the Arkham series, you can hit someone with the batmobile at 100 MPH, and they would only be "stunned"...

The exploding missiles and ammo from the Batmobile are also smart enough not to harm innocents apparently...
 
Deus ex did better, specifically because it's a stealth game (kinda), but was also rather unbelievable:
It takes one electric dart to take down an enhanced juggernaut, or half a magazine of armor piercing ammo...

 

I prefer it when gameplay actually makes some sort of sense, so if you have a non-leathal option that is actually superior to lethal one,

either everyone will use this option, or will modify this to be lethal...

So because some games handled it poorly, no other games should try? By that logic, Bioware and every other game company shouldn't make games anymore because every aspect of a game has had times where it was handled poorly. 

[Lady Artifice]

 
Here is an example why it's often executed in a dumb way in video games.
 
Batman Doesn't Kill People. Right?
 
So in the last miserable iteration of the Arkham series, you can hit someone with the batmobile at 100 MPH, and they would only be "stunned"...

The exploding missiles and ammo from the Batmobile are also smart enough not to harm innocents apparently...
 
Deus ex did better, specifically because it's a stealth game (kinda), but was also rather unbelievable:
It takes one electric dart to take down an enhanced juggernaut, or half a magazine of armor piercing ammo...

 

Well, that was because they would be thrown back by an electrical charge before the Batmobile could touch them.

 

It still doesn't make a lot of sense, because there's still the issue that electricity would effect different people differently, and that the charge doesn't control what they're thrown onto or whether the Batmobile promptly runs them over afterward. There's too many variables to assure Batman doesn't kill a lot of people accidentally, but to be fair, that's been an issue from pretty early on. With some of the blows Batman deals in hand to hand combat, accidentally killing someone is something that probably should have happened lots of times over.

 

But hey, it's Batman. He can fight off a magic blood disease through sheer force of will. Demonstrating perfect control over an enemy's exact physical endurance is nothing.

[Ahglock]

I prefer it when gameplay actually makes some sort of sense, so if you have a non-leathal option that is actually superior to lethal one,
either everyone will use this option, or will modify this to be lethal...

Oh I think it should be weaker which has always been my Shadowrun complaint. But I don't mind if it's effective enough to get by. It actually makes lethal options really dark when non lethal options are as effective or more effective. Shadowrun at least is supposed to be dark it being a dystopia.

[FKA_Servo]

With some of the blows Batman deals in hand to hand combat, accidentally killing someone is something that probably should have happened lots of times over.

 

Yeah, this. I've only ever played Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, but I mean... what exactly happens when you break every bone in a dude's body and then just leave him in the gutter? Are the emergency services in that quarantined section of the city really that on top of their stuff (or do they even exist?)? Does Joker whisk all his henchmen away to a hospital ward with terrifying candy stripers to recuperate?

[Laughing_Man]

So because some games handled it poorly, no other games should try? By that logic, Bioware and every other game company shouldn't make games anymore because every aspect of a game has had times where it was handled poorly. 

 

Never said that. I'm just skeptical, and also wouldn't want this to become the standard in gameplay. In special situations, sure,

but I still want to be able to shoot hostiles with a shotgun in my FPS/TPS games without being called a monster by the game for not

resorting to some implausible non-lethal solution. (because I bet that like in deus ex the game will react to the "selflessness" of shooting people with the magic non-lethal gun instead of real bullets)

 

 

But hey, it's Batman.

 

And that my lady, is why I simply can't stand Super Heroes. It's the same dumb rule-of-cool logic as anime.