Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Windows 8 powered medical devices (Score 0) 38

by IcyNeko (#42595295) Attached to: Course Asks University Students To Tackle Medical Device Insecurity

Meanwhile, the iMedical Device will either throw you a worthless message with a skull and crossbones, then lock itself out until you reboot it... or it will spontaneously melt itself when you run too many monitoring devices. But hey, that's why you bought AppleCare for $50 billion, right?

Comment: Re:Game needs a major patch. (Score 1) 235

by IcyNeko (#39621015) Attached to: BioWare Announces Free DLC To Add More To the Mass Effect 3 Endings

Actually, most people aren't mad because the ending is sad/tragic. Way to buy into propaganda. If you bother to read what everyone has said or listened to the countless youtube comments, there's one united message:

The endings are discontinuous in flow from the rest of the games.

It's not that people die. Most people are okay with people dying. It's that the game shifted from one which choice mattered and character endings were explained concisely to one in which there are more questions than answers. For instance, why were my crew, whom were completely loyal to me through the games and fought to their bitter ends on every other mission... suddenly running from battle? Especially the squad mates that were with me on the ground battle, charged with me to the citadel matter stream, saw me get cut down.. so what? Joker flies the partyvan by and tells everyone that it's time to peace out? That kinda personality change is very inconsistent. Every single person would continue fighting until the job was done. You don't ride in with every races' best ships to war just to chicken out when it counts.

It's not that people are yellign about inability to change a major storyline. To teh contrary, people are upset because the major storyline WAS changed, in the span of 14 lines of dialogue delivered by a 11th hour new villain who has the power to end it all and leaves it up to you, Neo, to rejoin the source. Really? A last minute super villain that supplants the existing villain armada? That's introduced in 14 lines?

Cool story, bro.

My advice? Stop reading Bioware's interpretation of people's anger and actually read what people have to say. What's funny is that despite BioWare saying that they are listening, all the angry people are saying THE SAME EXACT THING, and yet BioWare pretends that they don't hear it. :)

Comment: Re:EA strangles another once great studio (Score 1) 235

by IcyNeko (#39620893) Attached to: BioWare Announces Free DLC To Add More To the Mass Effect 3 Endings

Well, the comparison to the Matrix is pretty apt.

In Mass Effect, you have the main conflict, which is "We need to stop the reapers from killing all advanced races". This carries over three games. In the end, in the last 15 minutes and 14 lines of dialogue, the conflict objective completely changes to "You need to choose whether to condemn all sentient machines, control them (but lose yourself in the process... essentially merging yourself with the reapers -- else, how will you control them post-mortem?), or "return to the source" and add your own energy into the collective stream and force conformity to all life in the universe.

In the Matrix, Neo's entire conflict was "We need to stop the matrix/Agents/machine/Colonel sanders from enslaving humanity/destroying zion". That is, up until the last portion of the second movie, where an abruptly new character, Colonel Sanders, changes the decision to "Join the source and continue the cycle or watch us destroy humans." Sure, you can argue that they sorta did introduce the Architect earlier in the movie, but it was only hinted to here and there. You don't really meet him until the end. And even then, he replaces the main villain? Sorta kinda? Or offers a different kind of salvation? It's a really weak ending.. a deus ex machina.

In both cases, a last-minute introduced character offers an universal reboot with limited scope options. And for Mass Effect, a game built on the premise of your choice impacting the universe, to have that completely retconned in an ending where 2/3 choices involved rejoining the source, it's.. very weak. And Deus Ex machina?

Personally, when the kid tells me I can ONLY kill ALL of the reapers. Or ONLY do this. or that. with no varying level of options and controls, it just felt wrong. And for the starchild to watch the galaxy evolve around itself, including have evidence that AI and Biological units can coexist walking in its superstructure (hello EDI/Joker, Legion/Tali) and for it to continue on it's assumption that humans and robots can't coexist.. makes little sense. On top of that, the circular logic of "Machines kill advanced species so they can't create machines that kill advanced species" just hurts my brain. No, it's not that it is a thing I cannot comprehend. It's just poor logic. It's sloppy logic.

Instead, I took Option 4. I sat there emptying my clip at the starchild. Sure, the war raged on, but at least my shepard did something that is true to his nature: he used violence to solve stupidity. Oh yeah!

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...