73 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

that is the same idea, but a plastic hood like that would provide even less protection than a collapsible rigid helmet. If any sharp debris hits you the hood could rupture.

 

Likewise a heavy object can more easily smash a jointed helmet than a rigid one,

 

but the rigid one can't be as easily kept as it takes up more space.

 

The question is in the trade offs, the less moving pieces the more sturdy and reliable you can make the helmet, but it also limits the ways you can store it. Likewise a helmet built to be super compact and lightweight like a hood would provide minimal protection.

 

The collapsible helmets make sense if there is a tiny chance of sudden violent rupture of your enclosed environment, like a pirate attack. The hood idea makes sense if there is a chance of being thrown into space with little debris, like a force field wall failing. And the rigid helmets make sense if you know you are going to be under attack and are keeping the helmet on, like a warzone.

 

If you had to keep your helmet on you all day the collapsible one would be a lot more sensible than just thinking from a getting hit in the head standpoint.

 

What about the air? ^^

[wright1978]

The helmet shown so far looks amazing.



Although I'm not sure if it's Cerberus level of awesome. If I the glass is dark then maybe yes. Or if it changes depending on the situation. Black when you're shooting people in the face and lighter when you are talking with people (and not going all renegade). 

 

Maybe its deliberately darkened but right now face visibility seems very poor.

[I Am Robot]

Fixed that for you.  Good sci-fi shouldn't fall outside the realm of realism.  If it does it's science fantasy (cough, Star Wars, cough).

 

So, essentially everything other than hard sci-fi is bad, and hard sci-fi whose scientific premise is later refuted by new and better theories is also bad. Seems legit. 

[Chardonney]

Maybe its deliberately darkened but right now face visibility seems very poor.

 

I was actually thinking the same. And since we're probably going to be spending a lot of time in more or less hostile enviroments that require a helmet, I really want to see my protagonist's face. Automatically lightening and darkening visor would be nice. 

[pkypereira]

Maybe its deliberately darkened but right now face visibility seems very poor.

 

it could be like the tinted windows in cars, hard to see into but easy to look out of.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe its deliberately darkened but right now face visibility seems very poor.

I think it's deliberately darkened since at that point they either haven't decided on a default appearance yet or if they have they just don't want to show it yet. Though perhaps you can customize the visor for things like color and transparency. 

[wright1978]

I was actually thinking the same. And since we're probably going to be spending a lot of time in more or less hostile enviroments that require a helmet, I really want to see my protagonist's face. Automatically lightening and darkening visor would be nice. 

 

Agree want to see faces, so hopefully more transparent options are available or there is a light we can have have activated to give proper internal visibility.

[LightningPoodle]

Helmets on/off during gameplay.

 

Helmets on/off during cutscenes.

 

Helmets on/off for companions during gameplay.

 

Helmets on/off for companions during cutscenes.

 

It's only four options and it covers whatever the player may want. Sometimes, I like to always wear a helmet, and want my companions to always wear a helmet as well. Other times, I prefer to look at all their faces. Those four options would let me do exactly that, whenever I so choose.

[Quarian Master Race]

Retractable helmets are a niche design, they sacrifice protection for being able to store and carry them in a more compact form,

 

having to carry around a full helmet everywhere is a pita, but on a space ship, especially one that can come under surprise attack at any time, having a helmet at hand ready to put on can be the difference between life and death.

 

Go ahead, carry a full motorcycle helmet around for an entire day, having it always attached to your person, preform all your daily public errands with it, buy groceries with it, cook with it, tell me it isn't annoying, inconvenient, and a colossal pita. Now imagine everyone on a cramped starship has to also carry one around with them,

 

In game everyone has to carry a helmet with them where they are going, so the sacrifice of maximum protection in order to actually be able to carry it easily for emergency situations makes sense. If you know you will need a helmet that provides max protection then you can prepare one separately.

 

Having a basic helmet that can save you if you get spaced and does not interfere with your tasks is more important than a helmet that can withstand a nuke but is the size of a beach ball.

They aren't a niche design they're a silly design. They add a huge amount of complexity (thus unreliablility) and weight (all the little unnessesary joints, motors and hydraulics, possibly the electrical power supply) while sacrificing a huge amount of protection for the single "advantage" that they can be removed in a "cool" fashion that isn't any more convenient than simply taking off a typical helmet by hand.

As a motorcycle rider, I can honestly say that no, my helmet isn't at all annoying or inconvienient (especially for cooking?). It hardly weighs anything, can be removed in a second or two without an idiotic origami mess that would have a good chance of pulling a chunk of my hair out, and if I need the use of both hands I simply set it down nearby. In return, my brain gets the best defense modern science and engineering can provide from high speed impacts with pavement while providing adequate visibility.

In terms of a space helmet, being collapsible wouldn't just be much worse for protection and highly prone to mechanical failure, it also wouldn't work. It is theoretically impossible to create a helmet sealed against vaccum with a thousand little cracks built into the design even when it's working perfectly, let alone after you bump your head into something because your ship is being attacked or get hit by debris and misalign the plates or break one of the motors/ hydraulics, or even get some dust in it. ME shields/barriers don't protect against environmental hazards so it's all you have. Oh, and you're carrying it and its extra weight in an armor compartment at all times, as opposed to being able to easily store it somewhere. You may as well wear the breather mask or simply hold your breath and hope someone can get to you in the minute or so before you're dead for all the help it'd provide against vacuum.

Only if your priorities are looking "cool" over actually increasing your chances of living in an emergency situation the most you can (the whole point of a helmet), or at all in the case of retractable "helmets".

 

No. I can't muster an argument now that you've used gratuitous Latin. I need to sit down and breathe for an hour to manage the incredibly profound the insight I've read. 

 

I've already addressed the point - to the extent there even was one. Your point was about verisimilitude. It was a dumb point, because the entire setting is predicated on the opposite. When considered in terms of the actual setting, there's even less merit to it. 

 

The helmets you're talking about are an absurdity. To be useful combat helmets in environmental hazards, they'd have to be made out of indestructible material. A single puncture wound would be fatal and compromise the entire suit. In-setting, helmets like that couldn't co-exist with guns. For bullets to even be effective, the actual helmet itself - as a defensive tool in absence of the space magic shields they plaster over them - wouldn't be anywhere near as useful for personal protection or environmental protection. 

 

As of right now, there isn't even a functional theory of the kind of ways to approach combat in space. We lack the technology for it. And once we enter the real of pure fantasy, the idea of what a helmet "should" do go right out the window, because we're already dealing with space magic materials. BOOM, we have a fantasy material that has no structural weaknesses when made out of infinitesimally small divisible parts. 

So gratuitous is using the actual name of the fallacy you committed? Okay bub, I'll make sure to simplify my diction and make an attempt not use any more difficult concepts of formal logic so that you won't be late to your next Trump rally by having to look them up. I apologize, that was Faux Pas on my part (oh no, I've used more of them there foreign words!).

You haven't addressed the point, and more circular reasoning and arguing by assertion that the setting is predicated on being deliberately unrealistic isn't going to help you. The setting is predicated on a universe that follows the same rules as our own with the exceptions of the for lack of a better term "magic" properties of ficticious Element Zero and Mass Effect fields (the abilities of which have admittedly become more ridiculous as the series has progressed from an already implausible starting point), so criticism of anything that is inexplicable or internally inconsistent (such as breather masks, for one similar example) with providing the best inference for how such a technology could be optimally designed by those rules is valid (including your point ship design from earlier, among countless other things, but that again isn't what we are discussing). Seeing as it is theoretically impossible to seal a retractable helmet from vacuum, Mass Effect based means like shields and barriers do nothing to help, and a basic understanding of engineering and materials science leads to the obvious conclusion that a solid item is superior to one which deliberately introduces structural weaknesses and points of failure, you'd need a valid advantage in some other area to use the inferior item. There isn't one apart from rule of cool. No one would design such a thing, and anyone choosing one when objectively superior options exist would have to be an idiot. Therefore, retractable helmets are stupid and don't belong in the setting any more than something like space katanas. Stupid things in the setting are not an excuse to deliberately introduce more stupid things.

Why would they have to be made from indestructible (which is impossible, anyway) material? The plan is to keep you from dying due to punctures from bullets causing the positive pressure level to increase to the point where it would destroy the suit, at least long enough to get back to a pressurized environment, not to magically negate bullets entirely (not even non pressurized body armor does that, yet soldiers still wear it). This isn't even something that modern designs of spacesuits haven't had to consider (seeing as there isn't a huge difference between spacebourne debris like micrometeriods impacting the shell of the suit/helmet vs a similar sized projectile fired from a gun). Single punctures are theoretically not fatal nor do they immediately comprimise the suit. I won't bother to explain it, because you can simply read the suit schematics yourself. Most of them are public domain. Here's the Russian Orlan suit.
http://www.colorado....n3036/Orlan.pdf
Section 4.2 "oxygen supply and leak compensation system"

Obviously the design is different (it essentially uses a system of adjustable valves), but you'll note that the helmet and body shell are one rigid metallic structure, not a million tiny pieces, with only the parts that need mobiligy (arms and legs) being composed of soft materials. Further the space magic shields do exist in setting, so crying about "in the absence of" them is pointless. They could not bother with ceramic armour plating at all as long as they came up with a reasonably vacuum sealed suit, and it would be better than a retractable helmet that is deliberately designed with the knowledge in mind that it would leak and eventually compromise the suit even without any damage. NASA is also is already working on self repairing plastic resins that could fill, then harden to seal punctures in the hardsuit. They even performed a test by literally firing a (much larger real) bullet at a sample of it.

http://now.howstuffw...ring-spacesuits


What? How are sealed spacesuits which offer protection against projectiles "pure fantasy" (considering we already have those) and how would any theoretical materials not lose structural integrity when you deliberately introduce thousands of structural weaknesses and breaches, and even if the point were valid why is that a good excuse to introduce even less plausible designs? An argument from silence or incredulity isn't valid in this instance, unless you can come up with a reason why the retractable helmet would be superior in any way even with these supposed "space magic materials", they will remain as dumb as many of the other things that should be removed from the setting.

[Ahglock]

What about the air? ^^

What about it. Air canisters store in back panel pump through collar into the now sealed helmet.

I think collapsing helmets look really bad and don't want them for that.

But design problems aren't a real issue. Whatever issue we can come up with there is no reason why they can't say the sci fi tech fixed that.

Catch on hair. The vi controls make sure that doesn't happen as long as hair is regulation length.

Airtight seal the micro cracks are filled with carbon like from your omni tool

Protection. The design provides more protection(or optimizes a combo of protection, seals, mobility) from static models as technobabble here fixed X issues.

[afgncaap7]

I've never understood the idea that people MUST be able to see the main characters faces at all times. Seriously, how freaking hard is it to figure out what kind of complex emotions they're feeling in an environment that has BULLETS FLYING PAST THEIR FACE? If they're in an environment where a helmet is appropriate, then seeing their face is the last thing anyone should be concerned about. Do they think we're too shallow to understand something that isn't written out for us? Or do they think we're just too stupid to remember who's who?

​"I'm ready to go Shepard."
​"No Jack, you are not ready to go. We're about to enter a vacuum and you're half naked. Your piddly little breather mask will do approximately nothing whatsoever to keep you alive."

​"All right, breaching the door in 5-4-3..........where's your helmet Steve?! Are you trying to get yourself killed?! Go back and get it right now! Now remember boys, after we breach we're gonna let the lab techs who have nothing but a pistol and a vest go first even though we have full body armor and shotguns. It's OK, the plot will protect them." - Immersion according to scriptwriters.

[Quarian Master Race]

I've never understood the idea that people MUST be able to see the main characters faces at all times. Seriously, how freaking hard is it to figure out what kind of complex emotions they're feeling in an environment that has BULLETS FLYING PAST THEIR FACE? If they're in an environment where a helmet is appropriate, then seeing their face is the last thing anyone should be concerned about. Do they think we're too shallow to understand something that isn't written out for us? Or do they think we're just too stupid to remember who's who?

I don't get it either, and every time I see In Space Everyone Can See Your Face in movies or games I feel as though I'm being insulted. It's nice that ME3 gave us the option to keep helmets on in convos, I just wish it had actually worked at all times (looking at you Mars). It's not like the characters' bricklike expressions in these games ever conveyed anything that couldn't be done through vocal work or other body language. I didn't find quarians or even volus to be particularly less expressive than anyone else despite the lack of facial expression, for instance.

[wright1978]

I don't get it either, and every time I see In Space Everyone Can See Your Face in movies or games I feel as though I'm being insulted. It's nice that ME3 gave us the option to keep helmets on in convos, I just wish it had actually worked at all times (looking at you Mars). It's not like the characters' bricklike expressions in these games ever conveyed anything that couldn't be done through vocal work or other body language. I didn't find quarians or even volus to be particularly less expressive than anyone else despite the lack of facial expression, for instance.

The job of films/TV/games are not generally to indulge in 100% realism and personally I'm glad. Their job is to entertain and seeing the characters facial animation is something that creators and many viewers/players value.
I think ability to express of volus/quarians are somewhat diminished.
Now I hope mea provides options for those who want ultra helmet realism as long as those who want to see faces/expressions are provided for too.

[Kamal-N7]

... something ...

 

 

YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!

[Laughing_Man]

Would I prefer to see characters simply wear full helmets for every situation that might even remotely require them realistically? Absolutely.

 

However, if Bioware has to have certain characters with a design that does not include a helmet, or a situation like Joker and his blue bubble,

a somewhat realistic full-body suit and a retractable helmet are certainly better than the abominable designs of ME2 space gear.

 

Yes, retractable helmets are realistically over-engineered and are full of potential problems, but:

 

A. As someone mentioned above, a ship's crewman can't be expected to wear full helmet all the time,

nor carry one with him, it is inefficient and not realistic.

 

A retractable helmet as a just-in-case solution is a very believable concept to me.

 

B. If you have access to miraculous pieces of technology like omni-tools with micro fabrication capabilities, and certainly if

you have easy access to nano-technology, creating a working retractable helmet is less fantastic than you may think.

 

Or at least, it is in the realm of the believable for a science-fantasy like ME.

[Vortex13]

... something ...

 

 

 

Why do you want the Vashta Nerada in your helmet?!

[DaemionMoadrin]

As a motorcycle rider, ...

 

Quarian on a motorcycle.

 

I don't get it either, and every time I see In Space Everyone Can See Your Face in movies or games I feel as though I'm being insulted. It's nice that ME3 gave us the option to keep helmets on in convos, I just wish it had actually worked at all times (looking at you Mars). It's not like the characters' bricklike expressions in these games ever conveyed anything that couldn't be done through vocal work or other body language. I didn't find quarians or even volus to be particularly less expressive than anyone else despite the lack of facial expression, for instance.

The job of films/TV/games are not generally to indulge in 100% realism and personally I'm glad. Their job is to entertain and seeing the characters facial animation is something that creators and many viewers/players value.
I think ability to express of volus/quarians are somewhat diminished.
Now I hope mea provides options for those who want ultra helmet realism as long as those who want to see faces/expressions are provided for too.

 

A good actor can work around a limitation like a helmet or mask. Look at Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta, for example.

 

The problem is that Hollywood, and by some extent all western media, can't do subtle anymore. They need to show a character's face in a close up, for several seconds, often more than once... just to get a single emotion across. They treat the audience as if they were idiots unable to grasp that ... for example Finn in TFA is shocked, confused and scared after witnessing the massacre and the death of a friend. They needed three close ups to show that, as if the body language while he was still wearing his helmet wasn't enough. That's acting for children, making only grand gestures and pointing them out, so they can't miss it.

 

We see cool stuff like the Ironman armor in movies and want that, too. Problem is... have you seen how intricate that thing is under the armor plating? How thin the armor actually is? And how he needs AI support to wear it and use it? I'm not even going to mention the lack of fuel despite the rocket boost effect when flying or that he is in a tightly sealed can without any air.

 

In my last playthrough of the ME trilogy I tried to keep my helmets on as much as possible. Same for my team. The only reason I got the DLC outfits was for Garrus to wear something without a bullet hole (why would BioWare let him run around with a broken armor and bloody bandages?!) and for Jack to wear something on top. Don't get me wrong, I admire the female form and have absolutely no problems with boobies on display (nor do I think bare breasts have to be a sexual thing) but not in combat please. On board, sure.

The ME1 suits were the most realistic but even they didn't actually have air tanks, which you need in space. It really doesn't matter what kind of helmet you use, without air it's pretty much pointless. Btw... a breather mask wouldn't work unless you literally glued it to your skin.

 

I think my beef with ME is that it claims to be science fiction, to be serious about science (just look at the codex) but totally isn't. If the game would take itself less seriously, if it admitted it does't make sense but looks cool... then I'd have no complaints. Yes, collapsible weapons are nonsense, too. Not that the technology made any sense to begin with.

 

I prefer things to make sense. You can't tell me during the mission briefing that a planet has a toxic, acidic atmosphere and then drop topless chick and sleeveless merc on the planet.

 

So what's the problem with clear faceplates for proper helmets? It's the best of two worlds. Adequate protection and you're able to see the face. Oh no, you have to lug that thing around? Poor baby. Just assume it's strapped to the back of the belt when they take it off, it worked just fine for me in three games.

[medusa_hair]

If there is a choice to not show the helmet I always choose it. If not then I generally skip the helmet in any situation I can. After all, I spent quality time creating my PC, I want to see the fruits of my labor as much as possible. :-).

Plus I don't really get anything out of two helmets talking to each other. They could be anyone, really.

If they would just not show them during cutscenes I could go with that but not if they cut down on the cutscenes as a result.

[DaemionMoadrin]

If there is a choice to not show the helmet I always choose it. If not then I generally skip the helmet in any situation I can. After all, I spent quality time creating my PC, I want to see the fruits of my labor as much as possible. :-).

Plus I don't really get anything out of two helmets talking to each other. They could be anyone, really.

If they would just not show them during cutscenes I could go with that but not if they cut down on the cutscenes as a result.

 

So you'd be okay with your character taking off their helmet for a conversation in the emptiness of space?

[afgncaap7]

If there is a choice to not show the helmet I always choose it. If not then I generally skip the helmet in any situation I can. After all, I spent quality time creating my PC, I want to see the fruits of my labor as much as possible. :-).

Plus I don't really get anything out of two helmets talking to each other. They could be anyone, really.

If they would just not show them during cutscenes I could go with that but not if they cut down on the cutscenes as a result.

Oh come on. "They could be anyone"? Really? Shepard behaved the exact same way with or without a helmet. He moved the same way, he spoke the same way and he wore the same visually distinct armor. Even if he hadn't been the main character, I don't believe anyone here would've confused him for anyone else if he wore the helmet 24/7. There are a ton of behavioral quirks that people use to identify and "read" others that don't require direct sight of their face. You don't need to see someone's face to understand what an aggressive posture and raised voice mean. You don't need to see Garrus's face to recognize his very distinct voice. You certainly don't need to see Miranda's face to recognize her...ahem...

​I'd frankly say that if two helmeted characters are really that hard to tell apart then the real blame falls on the writers and/or voice actors for making boring characters, not the costuming department.

[Linkenski]

Sci-fi and Realism is an oxymoron.

Not necessarily, and particularly not when you sci-fi IP is based in reality which Mass Effect is because it starts at Earth and logically explains how we got into the sci-fi setting 100 years into the future as well as it could. It may have been bastardized with more fantasy-esque stuff along the way like true AIs and living robots nonsense etc. but at its roots it was a sci-fi that strived to capture a sense of realism.

 

I don't like calling the two oxymoron because then I start picturing every sci fi being some sort of cartoon and Mass Effect isn't (or didn't used to be) one.

[Linkenski]

snip

I think when you say that Hollywood has not subtlety and then single out TFA as an example, what you really meant to say "J.J. Abrams has no subtlety".

 

I don't think Hollywood has a good track-record either, but I think TFA was quite, well... extraordinary in how blatantly it emphasized melodramatic expressions. It's a thing Abrams does, I've noticed. He's all about making it striking and impactful but he cannot create subtle scenes because his focus is on the opposite. It's not all Hollywood blockbusters that do that, but sure, for action movies it is a common thing since Transformers or something.

 

But I digress. this Hollywood-esque lack of subtlety sums up my gripes with ME3 as well. I feel like ME1 was still half-stuck in the KOTOR-like book-dialogue for writing whereas ME2 switched to screenplay writing (and IMHO really, really good dialogue the majority of the time). The general feel of ME3 is more that of a modern Hollywood movie and yeah. Look at the first scene. A kid plays with his toys and the protagonist looks at him from his window with a warm smile. Oh, look at how sweet and innocent this child is. Then the child dies and the protagonist is shown closing his eyes because seeing a child being killed hurts, except he's a ****** super-soldier who's probably seen this happen thousands of times, realistically speaking. You know what would've made the scene better? To show the child being killed and show the protagonist without emphasising his expression. It would've let you feel emotional about it if you wanted to or it would let you not do that, and it would also characterize our protagonist as someone who keeps his head cool because there's a mission to do. That's how I usually played in the other two Mass Effects anyway. I pick paragade options when I feel it's appropriate to moralize or be invested on a personal level, but there are some times when it feels un-appropriate for the moment and I just go neutral. It's like when you discover some Salarians Thane trapped to keep them out of trouble in ME2 and a squadmate talks about what kind of guy Thane must be; forget it. We'll be the judge when we find him, not now.

 

I just hope ME:A goes more in a downplayed direction in terms of melodrama and emotions. Lots of directors think it's subtlety when you let facial expressions speak instead of words, except it's the same as with writing. The less explicitly said, the more effective it is. You use context. We can figure out if our character feels sad about this without making them look like they're about to cry just by figuring what a stoic stare means in conjunction with a sad event. Kaidan/Ashley worked way better than anything with that child in ME3.

 

And if the lesson isn't learned, I'll put on a faceless helmet to avoid unnecessary melodrama.

[StringerBell]

I think all the ME:A helmets should look like this

[Quarian Master Race]

I think all the ME:A helmets should look like this

WW1 aesthetic in space? I could dig it. Killzone basically already did the same thing with WW2.


^^not a space stahlhelm at all