Which is not what I said, stop twisting my words. I said that empirical data supports a current hypothesis and no data thus far has indicated that any other hypotheses is valid enough to use as a premise in either research or theory. I even clearly stated in my post that there are possibilities for non-carbon based lifeforms, but the conditions for a sentient silicon-based lifeform (the most likely candidate after carbon) requires too many ifs and buts to assume that there plenty of these in the universe.
We're looking at 2 things here: the odds for intelligent extra-terrestrial life and the odds that they are not carbon-based life. You're complaining that all life we encounter on earth-type planets are carbon-based, and not whatever-based. Earth-type planets are simply the perfect environment to support carbon-based life and there's simply a much higher chance for the existence of extra-terrestrial carbon-based life due to the properties of carbon (and its interaction with oxygen) and its massive abundance (about 8-times more prevalent than silicon), paired with the fact that oxygen is the 3rd most abundant chemical element, behind helium and hydrogen.
Your entire discourse discounts a dominant hypothesis based off infinitesimally small odds. There's even a possibility that we'll find a hydrogen/methane form of intelligent life that shits rainbows and farts gold, but the odds are so tiny that your complaint that we're not finding entire star systems full of them, with the possibility to interact with them, immersion-breaking is simply ridiculous and petty (an interesting read on immersion in gaming: Cheng, K., & Cairns P.A. (2005). Behaviour, Realism and Immersion in Games. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 1272-1275)).
Don't ever tell me I don't understand how science works only to make scientifically invalid assumptions based on chance, I've spent more time studying it than you have.
I´m only one pissed on the fact we cannot go outside and explore Meridian Engine?
Also it would be cool and make sense to bring Meridian back, and "insert" it back (and then use it as THE city).
- - - Updated - - -
Also, did anyone done comparsion of each graphic settings and its effect on perfomace/quality?
I´d like to crank up most from my system and balance quality vs. fps.
- - - Updated - - -
Its kind of funny how you can break boundaries with Ansel camera
Because, quite frankly, most people won't like it.
I wrote a rather large essay on the subject once but I'll try to sum it up. There is a limit to the range of how far "outside the box" you can make something before people will either be completely unable to understand it and because they will struggle to understand it they will become angry and upset and thus not like your product.
It's why "aliens" are never really that alien, they're just exaggerated elements of human culture with a twist. Even AI, which the series routinely says "has completely different needs than organics" is shown to have highly human motivations. Even The Great Old Ones in much of Lovecraftian horror, for as alien and inhuman and incomprehensible as they are, have pretty human motivations for their actions.
Creating really alien aliens is a fun thought experiment, but typically comes across poorly in writing and other mediums.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment a.k.a suspension of disbelief is a big theme at BioWare.
Por que odiar si amar es mas dulce? (*^_^*)
Overall, I'm liking it a lot, but am I the only one who feels the "open world" concept is just unnecessary for this game? There really wasn't a reason to make it into Dragon Age Effect. I see a lot of posters commenting how they just ignore a lot of the "fetch these 5 random satellites scattered across this needlessly spread out and mostly empty map, filled with 20 completely identical Remnant sites that you can grab a chest with useless junk from." But if that's the case, why even have it? I much prefer the smaller, more detailed environments of ME2 & 3. I liked the quick feeling of space travel to get wherever I wanted, and it made the planets seem bigger when you were just visiting a very specific area of them to complete whatever mission you were doing. Mining is annoying, collecting memory fragments in random areas is unnecessary. I'm not sure... it adds some depth to the feeling of exploring these brand new planets I suppose, but overall I just find the open world experience to be tiring in games like this.
There are different kinds of players, just because some of them ignore these quests means NOTHING. Others might like these quests and play combat on NARRATIVE difficulty (pew -> DEAD) because they don't like difficult combat. But I don't see anyone asking why's there combat. So no need to ask why are there these or those quests.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
Well I'm asking because this design wasn't present in the last couple games. Would it have helped them to develop a more complete game if they hadn't gone this route, and did it really add much for the tradeoff? A lot of the animation issues are because they didn't have time to do them by hand; they applied an algorithm to all the facial animations in particular.
http://www.game-debate.com/news/2254...aphics-options
- - - Updated - - -
You don't have to do MP to do strike missions. You get an npc team (or teams if you buy more with the mission currency) that you can send out from either the SP game, the MP game or using the Apex HQ app. In the MP game you can actually run some of the missions yourself in a MP setting (the missions listed as Apex missions) if you want to. If you play MP, you really want to be doing these strike missions even just with the NPC teams because the currency you get is used in the MP for buying certain equipment.
So I'm loving the game so far.
But . . . Normandy > Tempest.
Overall, I think the Trilogy was a better game, though I think Andromeda has better gameplay than ME1 (but ME1 has a better story.)
And I miss Garrus. My bro is 2.5 million light years away, fighting Reapers six hundred years ago.
Putin khuliyo
I am a little annoyed by the dialog wheel. Greyed out choices which typically mean something already discussed can hold new responses if you pick them again in some cases. It should stay/turn white if there is new dialog.
Any builds or play styles where pistols are good or necessary? I stopped carrying one after about level 20 and never equipped one again. In ME3 I usually carried a pistol as a secondary weapon to keep the weight down, but weight isn't as much of an issue in MEA with augs/mods. By the last 1/3 of the game I was equipping shotgun, AR, and sniper rifle without any recharge penalty. A pistol just didn't seem worthwhile.
In multiplayer highly recommend after getting a second strike team with your mission credit things to buy some armor, have yet to see any from the packs and the 10% shield + mlee dmg can be a lifesaver. Have no clue how good the thermal clip armor is.