151 réponses à ce sujet

[Lukertin]

ODST 3 wrote...
I believe Mass Effect a lot more than Halo. Mass Effect is a little too clean, but Halo has cars that run on gasoline and guns that fire bullets and rocket launchers that are much worse than what we have today. And it's supposedly 500 years in the future.

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Warthog The warthog doesn't run on gasoline.  Vehicles in halo burn liquid hydrogen...critic fail

And what's wrong with guns that fire bullets?  Reliable and cheap.

[BS Veyron]

They do mention in ME1 that the Einsteinium Universe that we know was ripped apart with the discovery of the Mass Effect technology. For me that alone is enough to make the ME universe believable.

[Shock35]

Luc0s wrote...

Halo is like a big joke to me. The game just doesn't appeal to me. It's like a Disney cartoon in space.

Mass Effect on the other hand, is more of a mix between the feeling I get from Star Wars, Warhammer 40k and maybe a bit Star Trek. I love Star Wars and Warhammer 40k, I'm not a big fan of Star Trek but that's okay.
I think Mass Effect did everything just right, except for a few missing genders from a few species. Also, the whole concept of Mass Effect is based on real science with a bit if fiction and wishful-thinking. It seems Mass Effect is on it's own when it comes to scientific plausibility, The Enterprise going 5 times light speed didn't make any sense whatsoever, to give just one example.
The reapers are my only problem with Mass Effect, they give me a strange, awkward and unrealistic feeling, but maybe that's the whole purpose of the reapers until we get a decent explanation on what the F- is going on with the reapers?

where are you getting warhammer 40k? the only influence i can see from that is the softcore genocide of the krogen much like the tau.

[Bearhandles]

The thing that draws me out of any possible halo lore is that fact that it is the year 2552 (dont ask me why i know that) whichn is 500 years later and we still look the same and act the same and have boring old guns. cultural stagnation is not part of a good narrative.

[Motion Blue]

Its actually the opposite for me, Mass Effect is the only universe that seems even remotely plausible.



Halo is ridiculous in almost every way imaginable, and is borderline generic space marine shooting.

[Group Theory]

I think the thing that gets me is the whole how humanity only made first contact 30 years ago, but they've already become the dominate force in the galaxy.

[GnusmasTHX]

The only thing more believable about Halo than Mass Effect is that Halo uses bullets.



On the other hand, Halo also has space-gremlins and magic hammers.

[Mak89]

ME is the most memorable and immersive sci-fi experience ever for me. Not even star wars comes close. I completely disagree. Although I don't know what you are talking about because you never actually specified what makes you feel this way.

[wulf3n]

Mak89 wrote...
 Although I don't know what you are talking about because you never actually specified what makes you feel this way.

Exactly, thats my point, i dont know why mass effect isnt immersive for me, thats what im trying to find out. some of the previous posts seem like viable options, still doesnt feel right though.

[Skyblade012]

Shinigami013 wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

Maybe it's the whole biotics thing which is basically space magic?

The technology in Halo (except for slipspace) is based on current technology only fast-forwarded 200 years so the developments are 'believable'. (edit: ME does a good job at this as well, not denigrating the tech aspect of ME, but the whole biotics thing requires some suspension of disbelief)

The Human brain uses 10% of its potiental. With the full 100% who knows what it could do?

That claim still has yet to be validated by science.  The majority of scientific tests indicate that an incredibly high percentage of the brain is active continuously, even during sleep.

Dangit, I know I have some links to that information somewhere...

[StowyMcStowstow]

I tend to be able to suspend my disbelief quite easily. I liked Halo, and I love Mass Effect. I find Mass Effect explains things very well in the codex.

[321scooter]

Comparing the two IP's to one another and saying that Halo is more believable doesn't make any sense. There is little to no explanation in Halo as to how humanity got to where it is. I can't believe something that doesn't have a thoughtful explanation and a bad story.

[Lukertin]

321scooter wrote...
Comparing the two IP's to one another and saying that Halo is more believable doesn't make any sense. There is little to no explanation in Halo as to how humanity got to where it is. I can't believe something that doesn't have a thoughtful explanation and a bad story.

LOL wut

[blank1]

I find the tech in Halo much more believable.



Who's to say that, in 500 years, we won't have tech that is largely similar to what we have today? Every area of tech doesn't advance at a predictable rate -- technology advances based on necessity. For example, Earth got way too populated, so humans in the Halo universe created faster propulsion systems for sublight travel. The Solar System got too small, so someone found a way to rip space-time a new one (Shaw-Fukijawa Space, or slip space) so that we could defy the laws of physics (Mass Effect is a horrible perpetrator here... FTL without using a "different dimension" cop out is pretty much 100% impossible). Why do weapons have to be super advanced pew pew laz0rz in the future? The power necessary to run what Mass Effect calls an assault rifle, or a particle accelerator, is enormous, and impossible. It's 100% feasible to say that, 500 years in the future, soldiers will be armed with standard chemical propulsion cartridges, but have much more advanced battlefield awareness tech, recoil compensation, cybernetic augmentation, etc. The wave of the future in warfare isn't laser beams and disruptor torpedoes, it's a seamless battlefield where commanders can issue orders based off of real-time intelligence and sitreps... but I digress.



Halo is more believable. Cultural stagnation is inevitable... there's only so much tech can do before things start becoming impossible. Take traveling outside the solar system for example... impossible. Traveling at light speed not only has serious repercussions (HEY LOOK, MY MASS BECAME INFINITE RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSE *dies of massive organ failure*), but it's not possible. I think we're all going to have to live with the fact that one day we're going to overpopulate our solar system and blow each other up for resources, and back to the stone age we go. Aliens on some other planet are doing the same thing. Travel to other solar systems will never happen. Ever.

[Mariquis]

To the person who mentioned that it was weird that the asari look like they do. If you were referring to how they look very humanoid, there's actually a really hilarious conversation going on in .. eternity bar in Illium (I think it might be the bachelors party) Where they start arguing about how the asari looks so much like their own respective races that they can't figure out what the other guys are getting out of it. The conversation is ended when one guys says "Wait, do you think this means they're manipulating our minds to make us think they look a certain way?" or some such. So... who knows.

[Space Shot]

blank1 wrote...
Take traveling outside the solar system for example... impossible.

The Voyager probes beg to differ.

blank1 wrote...
 Travel to other solar systems will never happen. Ever.

The eternal cry of the unambitious, the unimaginative, and frankly the ignorant.  The limitations of todays technology or society do not extend to all future possibilities because we do not have any sort of basis from which to judge that which we honestly do not know because our current perspective is so bloody limited.

Regardless, even without FTL travel, full galactic colonization is still within the realm of physical possibility (estimated min of 1.5 million years for monophyletic colonization of every star under known physical limiations), only on a different time scale as what "restrictions" there are move the process of interstellar travel from a few moments to a few decades/centuries.  While a "Mass Effect" or "Halo" type universe would, in this case, be impossible, that isn't to say that our species' existence will continue to be a global one (especially with the possibilities of intra-solar colonization.)   Even then, we probably won't kill ourselves off either as resource limitations (supplemented by technology) naturally control and moderate population growth and decline without the need for exorbitant resource driven conflicts (which are much more economical than military, in any case.)

Modifié par Space Shot, 10 février 2010 - 06:39 .

[BusterPoindexter]

wulf3n wrote...

Before i get started im not bagging either ME1 or ME2 they are still some of the best games i've played.

However, while playing the game, theres something nagging me, i can't quite put my finger on what it is, yet it somehow sucks me out of the illusion that this is real.
Other sci-fi games like the Halo series(even  though i think mass effect is better) have me believing that the future they've created is one that COULD exist, it feels real to me, but for some reason Mass Effect doesn't.
At first i thought it may have been the squeeky clean feel to ME1, almost like a disney movie, it didn't really show the darker side of nature, however that issue was addressed in ME2, yet i still feel the same way.

Im wondering if anyone has the same feeling, or may know what the reason could be.

I think it's a lot easier for a universe like halo because it only shows you a very narrow skope of itself.  Mass effect has to flesh out many cultures, apart from the battlefield.

Actually I think it's the role of humanity.  It's hard to imagine ourselves co-existing with another race of people that we don't understand, and it's much easier to believe that Humanity fighting another race of monstrous looking creatures.

[Nozybidaj]

Naltair wrote...

binaryemperor wrote...

It's more plausible than Star Wars.

I agree.

Star Wars isn't supposed to be based on humans from Earth though.  Remember "a galaxy far far away"?

[Andorfiend]

dan107 wrote...

None of them are even remotely plausible. Space marines running around with guns shooting things are a theoretical impossibility. The technology required for interstellar travel (assuming its even possible) is far outside our limits of comprehension. Nano-technology and genetic engineering which will allow for the creation of tiny machines and viruses that will be able to kill people by the billion is something that we're on the cusp of mastering. The ME universe has that represented in the form of the genophage.

One question that no one seems to ask is why on earth would you need soldiers, armies, and warships, when an entire species can be wiped out by a small team of scientists? That's where the wars of the future will be fought (assuming we survive that long) -- in science labs and computer networks, not on the battlefield.

The ME world is a pretty fantasy though, if you don't think too hard about it.

1) We could do interstellar travel right now if we had the collective will. Granted it would be by generation ship, but who cares? I'd still signup in a heartbeat.

2) People would still use marines and tanks when they have nano-plagues and germ warfare for the same reason that we still use them now when we've had nukes for 60 years and germ warfare for 3000 years. Total annihilation is rarely the goal of warfare. Read Starship Troopers.

Perhaps you should try thinking about it a little harder.

[Maj.Pain007]

binaryemperor wrote...

It's more plausible than Star Wars.

lol this.

[Lukertin]

Andorfiend wrote...
2) People would still use marines and tanks when they have nano-plagues and germ warfare for the same reason that we still use them now when we've had nukes for 60 years and germ warfare for 3000 years. Total annihilation is rarely the goal of warfare. Read Starship Troopers.
Perhaps you should try thinking about it a little harder.

I think you should do the thinking a little harder.  Effective germ warfare is total win.  If used correctly (i.e., deployer has 100% control over it), you can wipe out your enemy while leaving ALL INFRASTRUCTURE intact.  Zero rebuilding costs.  Just ship guys over to start repurposing everything.  Same with developing a radiation weapon that doesn't leave residual radiation, or any weapon that targets organic life without harming infrastructure.

Say you develop a germ that has a 50% lethality rate.  Release it on your enemy, war is instantly over, and nobody even 'needs' to pay for rebuilding because all the industry is still intact.  Or you can just march right in and take everything over, the enemy will be far too demoralized to mount an effective defense.  And on the flip side, threat of another biologically engineered disease is enough to keep the target population submissive to any demands you want to make.

[Andorfiend]

wulf3n wrote...
No i've definitely played it, probably close to 10 times, on both xbox and pc (own it on pc)
I just think you misunderstood but what i meant by "disney movie" (disney movie probably was a poor choice of words) i'll try and put a few points down.

While ME1 did have mature things in it, drug abuse, slavery, etc. for the most part it felt (at least in my paragon playthrough) very black and white, good versus evil. While Saren showed signs of his former humanity(or in his case turianity) i felt no remorse for killing him. I still haven't explained it very well, but i hope you understand my use of disny movie a bit better.

I think I see where you're coming from, but I don't really agree. The Mass Effect universe seems very rich and realistic to me.

The thing about the black and white conflict is that Shepard was fighting a very black and white battle. His foe was someone who had been brainwashed into attempting to destroy a galactic civillization with trillions of sentient beings. How can you not be a 'white hat' in that scenario? How could Saren not have been a black hat?

There were and are larger things at play, and perhaps it's not quite as simple as it seems but on the local level the Shepard vs Saren/Sovereign conflict was black and white. Some things in life are. It doesn't make the world seem unbelieveable to me because it was clear that it was not a 'humans good aliens bad' universe. This is not a simplistic world, and doesn't encourage simplistic worldviews.

In ME 2 Shepard is fighting a smaller and dirtier battle and has to use smaller and dirtier means. His white hat gets soiled. Heck there have been people complaining on this board that he didn't feel 'paragon' enough.

ME 3 is, I suspect, going to be season 4 of B5. We'll see how 'white hat' Shepard is when he nukes Zahadum.

[Andorfiend]

Lukertin wrote...

Andorfiend wrote...
2) People would still use marines and tanks when they have nano-plagues and germ warfare for the same reason that we still use them now when we've had nukes for 60 years and germ warfare for 3000 years. Total annihilation is rarely the goal of warfare. Read Starship Troopers.
Perhaps you should try thinking about it a little harder.

I think you should do the thinking a little harder.  Effective germ warfare is total win.  If used correctly (i.e., deployer has 100% control over it), you can wipe out your enemy while leaving ALL INFRASTRUCTURE intact.  Zero rebuilding costs.  Just ship guys over to start repurposing everything.  Same with developing a radiation weapon that doesn't leave residual radiation, or any weapon that targets organic life without harming infrastructure.

Say you develop a germ that has a 50% lethality rate.  Release it on your enemy, war is instantly over, and nobody even 'needs' to pay for rebuilding because all the industry is still intact.  Or you can just march right in and take everything over, the enemy will be far too demoralized to mount an effective defense.  And on the flip side, threat of another biologically engineered disease is enough to keep the target population submissive to any demands you want to make.

You should review biology. A '100% controlable' disease is a theoretical impossibility to use your phrase. Evolution is a **** that way. Same rules apply to self-replicating nano-tech btw. And you apparently have no idea why we don't use nukes. It's not to spare the real estate. We didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq becuase we wanted their land, houses or infrastructure, yet we didn't nuke them. Try mulling that one over and you may figure out why we didn't drop plague bombs on them either.

Modifié par Andorfiend, 10 février 2010 - 07:10 .

[Breakdown Boy]

The detail, the political climate, the xenaphobia and scientific explanaitions make this game believable. Best space opera story besides Star Wars.

[Geassguy360]

Andorfiend wrote...

I think I see where you're coming from, but I don't really agree. The Mass Effect universe seems very rich and realistic to me.

The thing about the black and white conflict is that Shepard was fighting a very black and white battle. His foe was someone who had been brainwashed into attempting to destroy a galactic civillization with trillions of sentient beings. How can you not be a 'white hat' in that scenario? How could Saren not have been a black hat?

There were and are larger things at play, and perhaps it's not quite as simple as it seems but on the local level the Shepard vs Saren/Sovereign conflict was black and white. Some things in life are. It doesn't make the world seem unbelieveable to me because it was clear that it was not a 'humans good aliens bad' universe. This is not a simplistic world, and doesn't encourage simplistic worldviews.

In ME 2 Shepard is fighting a smaller and dirtier battle and has to use smaller and dirtier means. His white hat gets soiled. Heck there have been people complaining on this board that he didn't feel 'paragon' enough.

ME 3 is, I suspect, going to be season 4 of B5. We'll see how 'white hat' Shepard is when he nukes Zahadum.

Awesome use of B5 there. I sometimes feel like the only person who's seen that awesome show.