151 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

The only thing that I find somewhat ridiculous is the asari, a race of sexy, blue, bisexual, babes.

I simply tend to ignore I feel that way however.

[z4t001]

humm.. mass effect's mass effect is actually based partly on reality. what mass effect achieves is theoretically possible but what we lack is the medium to create such high energy -- it is not present on earth.



spherical engines with holes in the middle.. wish i could remember, but basically.. with enough power, you can generate a mass effect field in which regular propulsion would have a significantly stronger effect, but the effectiveness of how mass effect (the game) portrays FTL is unreasonable. even travelling 5x the speed of light, getting around our own galaxy would be impossible.



the only 'real' way to travel through space is either deal with it the mass effect way and become synthetic (as that is the only way you can live long enough) or go more star-trek/star-warsy and deal with the problem by attempting to fold space/time.

[LtRadczek]

I found both the Mass Effect and Halo universes to be plausible and realistic in their own contexts. Halo's story is about humans in the early stages of building a galactic empire. They had no contact with aliens whatsoever, so they had to develop everything on their own, which is why, even though the events in the Halo storyline take place over 500 years in the future, they still seem less futuristic than Mass Effect, which takes place in the late 2100's. Mass Effect's universe is more along the lines of Star Wars, with humans sharing the galaxy with a vast number of alien species, with all species having extremely advanced technology due to the Reapers leaving behind their creations. However, it is still completely different than Star Wars. Star Wars is much more far-fetched, since it is completely made up; it uses nothing from actual human history, since it is in a galaxy far away a long time ago. Mass Effect, however, is much more believable since it uses actual human history as a backdrop, instead of just completely making up the history.

[dan107]

Lukertin wrote...
Lulz.  So when you fight an enemy that decides it will reorganize its tactics to exclude dependency on computers, you're ****ed. 

WTF kind of sense does that make? Warfare is already computerized. "Reorganizing your tactics to exclude dependency on computers" is suicide. That means no satellites, no guided missles, no fighters, bombers, or even tanks made after 1970 to name a few things.

And nobody is going to use biological warfare (besides its being illegal under international law)

Right. Because no one's ever started an "illegal" war. :innocent:

when they will have so little control over what it does.  A weapon you can't control is useless.  If the pathogen mutates and goes out of control, that could wipe out a huge portion of the population. 

The genophage was perfectly controlled and did exactly what it was supposed to. You don't even need to go outside the ME setting to see the inconsistency. Mordin said that wiping out the Krogan entirely would've been very easy.

[dan107]

Andorfiend wrote...
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.

I was talking about ME style interstellar travel. Generation ship (which is still a highly theoretical technology) is not going to allow us to zip around the galaxy fighting wars and putting our dick on the table whenever a problem arises.

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.

Reading Starship Troopers does not meet my definition of "thinking harder". Your mileage may vary.

The reason we haven't used nukes in 60 years is that no power that had nukes has found itself on the defensive in a real war fighting for survival (especially against another nuclear power). If that ever happens you bet your ass we'd use every weapon available.

And I suggest you read up on nano technology. We'll have weapons that can take you apart molecularly and turn you into jello well before we'll have FTL drives.

Modifié par dan107, 10 février 2010 - 08:25 .

[Ieldra]

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.

I don't know the Halo universe, but I admit it's hard to suspend disbelief in the ME universe, and ME2 has made it a lot harder.

Some issues:
(1) Asari having human-compatible triggers for sexual attraction (well, OK, that's been explained - listen to the bachelor party on Ilium, but it's still a stretch).
(2) Interspecies sex in general. I just can't believe it.
(3) The "Terminator Reaper". Why the hell do they need to "process" millions of humans? And why has it a humanoid shape where another would be more advantageous. Just existing for the supposed shock value, I guess. Well, it hasn't one, it's just cheap - I feel like in a trash horror movie. As if the z... er, husks weren't enough.
(4) Spaceships looking like airplanes.
(5) Inability to revisit places = world inconsistency.
(6) The universe feels small - the huge distances covered by space travel do not come across. In ME1 there was at least a hint of it. In ME2 there is almost nothing.
(7) Little things like installing Legion in a AI core of the Normandy.
(8) Teleporting out on mission completion.

All in all, for all the gameplay improvements, ME2 feels more like a game and less like a world than ME1, to say nothing of other RPGs (and quite a few shooters as well). It's fun to play, and combat is well-done, and the character interaction is absolutely first-class. But the worldbuilding is lacking. Not in concept, really, but in implementation.

BTW:
ME style FTL travel should not be criticized. If you want a galactic civilization, you need interstellar not only to be possible, but to be reasonably easy. I'd prefer it not quite as easy, but as far as the science goes it doesn't make a difference. It's a necessary miracle.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 10 février 2010 - 08:43 .

[BatarianBob]

Series like Halo and Battlestar Galactica achieve what their writers think of as "realism" by making everything look contemporary. The guns are modern guns. The cars are modern cars. The communicators are cheap cell phones.



Mass Effect leans more toward the Star Trek/Star Wars/Babylon 5 school of thought. Everything in the future will look strange and different and make weird sound effects.



Reality will probably be somewhere in between.

[MegWithAMouth]

Gar_Logan wrote...

I feel the exact opposite. Halo looks like some...well, it doesn't look real. However Mass Effect seems actually plausible.

Same here. It's a bit hard to fathom, but I could see something similar occuring sometime in the distant future.

[Andorfiend]

dan107 wrote...
Reading Starship Troopers does not meet my definition of "thinking harder". Your mileage may vary.

The reason we haven't used nukes in 60 years is that no power that had nukes has found itself on the defensive in a real war fighting for survival (especially against another nuclear power). If that ever happens you bet your ass we'd use every weapon available.

And I suggest you read up on nano technology. We'll have weapons that can take you apart molecularly and turn you into jello well before we'll have FTL drives.

Starship Troopers includes a well thought out discussion of why you still have and use limited weapons like troops in an age of absolute weapons like nukes. I hope you're not basing you reply off the movie which was a horrid perversion of the original book because VanVerhoven is a hack with his own political axe to grind.

And again, self replicating nano-tech is no more controlable than bio-warfare. It is in fact the same stuff. You don't use it on any piece of property you plan on using again any time soon because it will mutate and spin out of control.

And while you're right about using weapons of mass destruction in a war of survival we haven't seen one yet in ME, or at least in a scenario where it was the appropriate response.*

* - Well actually, it would have made a lot more sense to just plant a 100 megaton nuke inside the Collectors base and blow it to hell, but you were trying to rescue your crew, I guess.

[Jarcander]

Kosmiker wrote...

*You can't go to the bathroom without bringing your squadmates with you, females included. If you want to take a dump, do it in the Normandy.

This wouldn't be an issue if there weren't any bathrooms at all. Am I rite?

[Kosmiker]

Jarcander wrote...

Kosmiker wrote...

*You can't go to the bathroom without bringing your squadmates with you, females included. If you want to take a dump, do it in the Normandy.

This wouldn't be an issue if there weren't any bathrooms at all. Am I rite?

Exactly! You could always do it in the bushes while Grunt and Jack watched your back. lol

[Jarcander]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Some issues:
(2) Interspecies sex in general. I just can't believe it.
(3) The "Terminator Reaper". Why the hell do they need to "process" millions of humans? And why has it a humanoid shape where another would be more advantageous. Just existing for the supposed shock value, I guess. Well, it hasn't one, it's just cheap - I feel like in a trash horror movie. As if the z... er, husks weren't enough.
(4) Spaceships looking like airplanes.
(5) Inability to revisit places = world inconsistency.
(8) Teleporting out on mission completion.

2. Sex sells.
3. Well they could've explained it better. Maybe in ME3
4. Smaller ones do, wings really help when there's athmosphre. Also, good place to set explosive weaponary rather than attached to critical hull areas.
5. Issue not with world, issue with developers not having enough time to add places not involved with story.
8. I like it. Saves time.

Modifié par Jarcander, 10 février 2010 - 04:29 .

[AGogley]

A made up, Sci-Fi universe doesn't seem real? Say it aint so!



Halo has a lot of explanations if you read the books. Computer technology changed drastically, for example, in that they had AIs.



Mass Effect is extremely well thought out. One of the problems of any RPG is that it is based loosely on D&D. You are going to have seperate classes and instead of a "magic" user you need some Scientific replacement for that class. Hello biotics.



As far as Nukes, bio tech, etc. It's easy to think we'd have that technology, but because the weapons are so dangerous (especially if you factor in espionage), there are politics which generally relegate such technology to black ops research. So it makes sense in a political atmosphere like the Citadel to have limited access to technology of such hazard.

[Darth Drago]

Maybe it has to do with the fact that less than 30 years after the human first contact with aliens we now pretty much have taken over the political system in the Citadel to rule the galaxy? Yea real believable how the other races would sit back and let the “new race” run the show even if we saved the galaxy.



The fact that everyone speaks English (or your countries native) and uses Human references/dialog combinations that wouldn’t make much sense for them to use. Keep in mind the less than 30 year first contact issue. As far as I recall was there any explanation for this like some sort of universal translator?

[John Locke N7]

what are you talking about? the ME universe feels more real than any sco-fi universe (behind firefly) ive EVER experienced. mabye you should the first book.

[John Locke N7]

what are you talking about? the ME universe feels more real than any sco-fi universe (behind firefly) ive EVER experienced. mabye you should the first book.

[dan107]

And again, self replicating nano-tech is no more controlable than bio-warfare. It is in fact the same stuff. You don't use it on any piece of property you plan on using again any time soon because it will mutate and spin out of control.

What are you basing that on? First of all, there is no reason to believe that a technology that has been specifically designed to avoid uncontrolled mutation will necessarily do so within the relatively short time-frame of its application. Nor does it have to be self-replicating necessarily. Non-replicating nano robots deployed en-masse designed to (for instance) paralyze crucial biological processes when inhaled and to degrade after a certain period time could be used to target isolated locations.

But to save us an exhausting discussion on the merits of real life nano technology, I point you again to the genophage. A controllable and effective biological weapon exists in that setting, and yet no one seems to realize that its existence makes large scale armies unnecessary.

And while you're right about using weapons of mass destruction in a war of survival we haven't seen one yet in ME, or at least in a scenario where it was the appropriate response.*

Alright, for arguement's sake, let's assume that there will still be a need for an army-like structure to impose order as opposed to destroy outright. (Although then it's more of a police force, but that's where modern armies seem to be going anyway). The question is then how efficient are human beings (or similar creatures) in terms of combat effectiveness? A soldier's primary purpose is to deliver a weapon into a position from which it can effectively neutralize the enemy, and to fire that weapon. In the most advanced technologies, the human being is rapidly becoming the limiting factor.

Case in point - fighter jets. We are more or less seeing the last manned fighters being produced right now. Practically all research funding is going into UAVs. There is virtually nothing that a UAV controlled by a technician on the other side of the world can't do that a manned figher plane can. But UAVs are much cheaper and have the potential to be much more maneuverable and effective, since their design doesn't have to take into account not killing the pilot. How long before this is true for naval ships? Tanks? Trucks? How long before it's possible to build a remotely controlled robot that's capable of physically carrying out all the primary functions of a foot soldier? How long before it's cheaper to build and deploy such robots than it is to train and deploy live soldiers?

Now apply that to space, where supporting a living breathing human being is several orders of magnitude more expensive than it is on earth. The most that you're looking at in terms future space armies are robots that are remotely controlled by engineers from a nearby location. Certainly not crewed combat ships and space marines. (And that's leaving aside the implications of AIs and VIs. If we get to the point where a robot can not only carry out physical functions in battle, but can make better combat decisions than human beings, that changes the dynamic even further.)

Modifié par dan107, 10 février 2010 - 05:11 .

[AGogley]

Dan:



I think you forget to account for the effect of politics on warfare. A lot of weapons are simply not researched or used because the are not politically convenient or popular. That is one of the reasons why there is no AI research (except secret off the books research) in the Mass Effect universe. (also think cloaking technology in Star Trek).



Societies don't generally condone the use of certain techniques (do you think we cared terrifically about civilian casualties when we bombed Germany? And yet today, collateral damage is avoided at almost any cost.)



So it is realistic to think certain technology exists but because of political consequences is not developed in any practical form.

[AGogley]

Darth Drago wrote...

Maybe it has to do with the fact that less than 30 years after the human first contact with aliens we now pretty much have taken over the political system in the Citadel to rule the galaxy? Yea real believable how the other races would sit back and let the “new race” run the show even if we saved the galaxy.

The fact that everyone speaks English (or your countries native) and uses Human references/dialog combinations that wouldn’t make much sense for them to use. Keep in mind the less than 30 year first contact issue. As far as I recall was there any explanation for this like some sort of universal translator?

Do you actually read the codex entries?  Explanations are given for all this stuff.  And a major theme running through both ME1 and ME2 is this general undercurrent of animosity towards humanity, a relative newcomer, trying to push themselves into a major political force in the galaxy.

[7th_Phoenix]

Something not quite right about the Mass Effect universe when I played ME1 for the first time:



Slow ass elevator rides.



A century into the future and we have to endure this?

[Pauravi]

Nozybidaj wrote...

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"?

So?
Physics is just the same in other galaxies as it is in the Milky Way.

[RudaOne]

I'm no biologist, and I might even have missed a codex entry or two, but isn't 50,000 years a rather short period of time for any sentient species to reach the peak of their civilization? I mean, from scratch?

[CrazyShuba]

As far as Halo goes, it's a realistic look into what would happen if we didn't have contact with aliens, and had to progress on our own. I mean, it's not like we didn't advance technologically in the Halo universe, we do have colonies, and more advanced weaponry, despite what people may think. Hell, the SPARTANS themselves are humans advanced by technology. Just because we're not using laser guns doesn't mean that the technology hasn't advanced.



The fact that only the Covenant knows how to use Plasma energy is part of what made them so intimidating. Weapons with ammo that doesn't need to be reloaded, the ability to use shielding, having more advanced space travel. If you're complaining that the presence of a larger timespan means that we should be super futuristic, then you should just criticize every fantasy game and novel. If there's magic, why not use it to help make a Utopia? The bad guys always seem to be able to turn places into pure evil, but if there's good magic, why isn't there a place that's like Paradise.



It seems people here just want to criticize Halo because they think it's "dumb". It's not. If you want to see a dumb futuristic game, look at Gears of War. No real explanation as to why the guys are hulking packs of muscle, no real deep thought put into it, enemies that lack character. Hell, they make it on another planet, and can't be creative enough to make it look any different, and the native language just HAPPENS to be English.



No need to hate on Halo. It's just trying to be a space drama, but with shooter elements. Hell, Mass Effect might not have had a chance being made without Halo making the whole space element a new trend in video games.

[Jzadek72]

wulf3n wrote...


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

That is strange considering Mass Effect has realistic science backing everything up, yet Halo? Halo has no depth, silly aliens and no explaination why peole still use todays weapons in the far future. Oh, and the fact that a ragtag group of low-tech humans can fight a huge, highly advanced spacefaring civilisation that can glass planets is unrealistic.

[Jzadek72]

Lukertin wrote...

Naltair wrote...

binaryemperor wrote...
It's more plausible than Star Wars.

I agree.

George Bush actually being a Sith from Star Wars is more plausible than Star Wars.

And that's saying something.

:huh:It's just wrong that that seems quite plausible to me...