Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

That's your definition of over the top? I guess we just see different things.

No, I am showing examples worse then the GTA pictures you shown... In order to state that your objections are mostly based on objecting to female sexuality period... then on any sort of understanding of the material you are bringing up.

[nenjin]

Uh huh. When we disagree, it's obviously because of me "objecting to female sexuality period."

It's always nice trying to talk to you Neonivek. Until you start trying to play psychologist.

[Neonivek]

That's your definition of over the top? I guess we just see different things.

At least I say what I mean. Instead of these back handed insinuations.

Which is pretty clear what I was saying anyhow and it wasn't playing psychologist but rather taking your argument and unpacking it.

Since your example of constant non-stop in your face hyperbolic sexuality was... well wanting.

Mind you I didn't intend what I said to be an outright accusation on you so much as an outright counterpoint to your argument by painting it in a pale light. Which is exactly what your doing as well, just backhandedly so you have plausible deniability. That way you can accuse me to anyone who reads your statement, but if I bring it up you can of course take it back since that isn't explicitly what you said.

[Krevsin]

Moving swiftly on:

Sci-fi armor
Bullet-resistant armors rely on spreading the force of a bullet over as large an area as possible. This is why rifle-resistant armor consists are large, flat plates that cover most of the torso. Splitting that armor into many tiny plates that don't even overlap and are weirdly angled just spreads the force over a smaller area which makes it worse as armor and the weird angling means the bullet might ricochet into other directions, such as towards other parts of your body or your mates.

[Neonivek]

Well there are many kinds of armors Krevsin.

Another type is somewhat Ablative meant to absorb the impact that shatter, thus pushing its impact away from the user. This is commonly a one use armor. This works with energy weapons especially since the burn off from the armor continues to absorb the heat instead of the armor itself.

Or another is Deflective which was common in medieval and Tank armor. Since pound for pound a crossbow bolt has enough force to pierce platemail, though not consistently, but it would be pretty difficult because the armor is designed in such a way as to push the force out of the way, making getting a direct hit with a bolt nearly impossible.

as for Sci-Fi Armor the usual issue is we don't exactly know how they work usually. In Mass Effect there is no real physical force that could ever actually block a bullet from even the lightest caliber of weapons... thus armor is more accurately a deceleration field and forcefield at the same time with light plates of armor... while also being somewhat of a hazard suit.

So it really depends... Can you give me an example?

[Krevsin]

Well there are many kinds of armors Krevsin.

Another type is somewhat Ablative meant to absorb the impact that shatter, thus pushing its impact away from the user. This is commonly a one use armor. This works with energy weapons especially since the burn off from the armor continues to absorb the heat instead of the armor itself.

Or another is Deflective which was common in medieval and Tank armor. Since pound for pound a crossbow bolt has enough force to pierce platemail, though not consistently, but it would be pretty difficult because the armor is designed in such a way as to push the force out of the way, making getting a direct hit with a bolt nearly impossible.

Tank armor is not personal armor, which is why both your examples are unworkable.

Ablative armor still has a force push back towards the body, which on a person would result in cracked ribs and bruising (at best) and severe internal bleeding and organ trauma at worst. Also what you described as "ablative" armour is basically how modern rifle plates work.

Deflective armour works on objects with simple geometry (such as tanks) or for melee combat. Medieval armor (i'm assuming you mean plate) worked primarily on absorbing the impact and spreading it, only using curved pieces on the shoulders and head to deflect.

And of course, plate armor was developed because full mail armor was basically impenetrable so people started using maces and such, weapons that harmed the user by causing intense internal trauma through blunt force. The answer was plate armor which distributed the impact over a larger area, which then resulted in the development of weapons mostly meant to pierce plate armour. Then armor kind of became irrelevant for a long time because to stop a bullet you'd need some seriously heavy armour.

Fast forward to modern times, rifle plates are used to stop rifle bullets by preventing penetration and distributing the force of the bullet over the entire chest area. Helmets are the only thing that uses deflection to prevent a soldier from kicking the bucket. Mostly because using deflection anywhere else would mean you could redirect the bullet into a potentially dangerous area.

as for Sci-Fi Armor the usual issue is we don't exactly know how they work usually. In Mass Effect there is no real physical force that could ever actually block a bullet from even the lightest caliber of weapons... thus armor is more accurately a deceleration field and forcefield at the same time with light plates of armor... while also being somewhat of a hazard suit.

Why not just use the deceleration field and forcefield then? A hazard suit does not need to have ceramic plates. The armour in mass effect is armour. It's just the last line of defense when the forcefields and deceleration fields fail. And when Shepard gets shot in one of those exquisitely shaped ab plates of his, he's going to get some serious damage to his internal organs. Which brings me to another peeve, this time a bit more general.

Generously shaped armour
Boobplate, abplate, all those things. They are not effective armour. Period. No, the shaped armour ancient roman/greek generals wore was a parade piece, not a bona-fide battle-ready piece of kit.

[Neonivek]

It is very likely the field needs to be projected over an area, rather then being capable of being contained in a single part. (or rather... the entire suit is the generator, not just a small device in the suit). As well the game makes it quite clear that the bullets aren't decelerated to nothing but rather done to an extent where they will plink off the armor or punch the wearer to an extent.

But honestly that is as far as my hand waving can really go with it. I understand the technology involved as far as the very first game was involved (and the second and third games drastically rewrote the technology to introduce tropes that went against what the earlier game(s) set up... a big one being ammo). It is enough to justify why their armor looks the way it does to an extent.

And yes I do get the impression that the armor looks good in Mass Effect, but... I feel as far as the setting is concerned it is justified.

They are kind of like the Sport cars of armor

---

Though I mean any other examples? Mass Effect cannot be the only one you had and while I personally think it is justified... I had to read pages upon pages of lore to come to my conclusion... which isn't something anyone should be expected to do. As well as extrapolation I used to apply to the gaps given by the information... which can be considered my own invention as opposed to being intentional.

Hmmm... suddenly I am having a hard time thinking of examples... Come on me, you played sci-fi games before.

There is uhhh... StarCraft with the Ghosts and their barely existant thin metal plate of uselessness... Where a basic Marine is basically piloting a mini-mech. What is kind of worse is the setting basically just lets them be this extremely powerful force in spite the fact that the ghost's only unique ability is that they are psychically attuned.

---

Generously shaped armour
Boobplate, abplate, all those things. They are not effective armour. Period. No, the shaped armour ancient roman/greek generals wore was a parade piece, not a bona-fide battle-ready piece of kit.

Here is somewhat my sort of question...

What about it being intentional? I mean many actual armors were flowery or excessively dressed. Genuine Samurai armor is incredibly garish and overdesigned (mind you, it was all fear tactics)

Not that it would make you any less peeved given that this is similar to "Gold being a super material in RPGs" deal. (which I can only accept when gold has some sort of magic amplifying power that makes it ideal for magical arms and armor... Otherwise it is just silly)

And this is the Pet Peeve thread not the "Justify your peeves" thread xD

[Krevsin]

On mass effect, wave your hands enough and anything is justified. (another pet peeve of mine)

One of the most egregious examples of horribly designed sci-fi armor in my recent memory is the Titan armor from the new XCOM.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The chest piece is slanted just enough to direct any bullets/plasma bolts right towards the head. The chest piece is also needlesly ornate (just make it a large plate, it doesn't need all that detailing of the pecs) and the bit that covers the abs is just weird.

Here is somewhat my sort of question...

What about it being intentional? I mean many actual armors were flowery or excessively dressed. Genuine Samurai armor is incredibly garish and overdesigned (mind you, it was all fear tactics)

Not that it would make you any less peeved given that this is similar to "Gold being a super material in RPGs" deal. (which I can only accept when gold has some sort of magic amplifying power that makes it ideal for magical arms and armor... Otherwise it is just silly)

If we're talking something like Bayonetta, where everything has had the insanity turned up to 11, I am not bothered by floweriness and silliness of the armor.

When it's something that takes itself a tad more seriously (like say Mass Effect or the new XCOM), these little niggles tend to pile up.

And this is the Pet Peeve thread not the "Justify your peeves" thread xD

I'm a very ranty sort of person. I like ranting and raving. In fact I hope that when I'm old I get to be the insane hobo who yells at people in the park. It is my dream existence.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but at least Mass Effect does hand waving well enough...

Xcom? Heck no. There is no reason for the armor to look like that. (The lack of Helmet I can look past... otherwise you would be hard pressed to tell people apart)

[94dima94]

This
(WARNING: Tvtropes link. Open this only if you have nothing to do for the next 5 hours)

Anyway... yeah, Cutscene Incompetence.

I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 8, and I like it, but that is the one thing that ruins the illusion: how am I supposed to believe a major character dies fighting 10 or 20 normal soldiers, if I reached that cutscene only because I was able to defeat MORE THAN 900 of those?
Even worse, 20 arrows during a battle? An acceptable amount of damage. During a cutscene? One of those, and you're out.

I don't care about "realistic" battles! This is Dynasty Warriors!
It goes against all the cheesiness of the setting. Is it so hard to add a couple hundred more people to those scenes?

[Neonivek]

I kind of hate when you defeat someone and then the cutscene occurs stating that they defeated you instead.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, I think most people hate that.  It's one thing when, in the cutscene, the villain pulls out some surprise twist or even bizarre new form.  (It's better if they do that in-engine though).

But sometimes a game just cuts directly to the PC on the ground exhausted, after kicking ass, and that's dumb and annoying.

[Lossmar]

This
(WARNING: Tvtropes link. Open this only if you have nothing to do for the next 5 hours)

Anyway... yeah, Cutscene Incompetence.

I'm playing Dynasty Warriors 8, and I like it, but that is the one thing that ruins the illusion: how am I supposed to believe a major character dies fighting 10 or 20 normal soldiers, if I reached that cutscene only because I was able to defeat MORE THAN 900 of those?
Even worse, 20 arrows during a battle? An acceptable amount of damage. During a cutscene? One of those, and you're out.

I don't care about "realistic" battles! This is Dynasty Warriors!
It goes against all the cheesiness of the setting. Is it so hard to add a couple hundred more people to those scenes?

This, oh sweet jesus this a hundred times over and over again... Nothing makes me more mad than defeating someone and watching a cutscene where my army/character gets completely owned...

[94dima94]

Well, if done right (usually it's not the case...) it can be a good twist.

But that's not the point in this. It's not that hard. If your character is SUPPOSED to fight a certain enemy without any difficulty, but he's supposed to lose, just put something else in the cutscene! It's a cutscene! You can make anything happen!

And about the automatic defeat... yeah, again, it's a CUTSCENE! Do you want to make the character lose? You can! Anything can happen! But MAKE IT HAPPEN somehow!

Of course, doing that could end up even worse, but at least they could try.

[Rolan7]

I actually like it when a fight (in-engine) is unwinnable.  Particularly when it's designed to be too difficult, but can be "won" but pulls out a sucker punch at the end.  Especially if that grants some token reward.  PCs don't have to be unstoppable.

It's just aggravating when the cutscene doesn't match what just happened.  If the PC was kicking ass under my control, at least show that first.  *Then* reveal that the antagonist had some trick prepared.