555 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Yep, well the arguments over this have gone on just about forever - which is largely why I haven't been here in a while (popped in because I'm replaying the game on my shiny new laptop and because I'm keeping up on DA2, etc.). Eventually it becomes repetitive and dull to argue the same points ad infinitum.

Some people prefer the more focused narrative of ME1, and their main complaint seems to be that ME2 lacked similar direction. I love both games, but the change in game mechanics was another thing that upset some individuals. You're just never going to please everyone all of the time, so eh, I wouldn't get too worked up over the people who didn't enjoy it.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:09 .

[MadInfiltrator]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I love real sci fi. I get annoyed when awesome series like Firefly fail because they don't have the pew pew of Star Wars lasers. That said, I do still love Star Wars. So I do feel ya here.

Was ME1 more sci fi than ME2? Maaybe. You still had sound in space and killer robots and aliens who were really just humans spray-painted blue. To me they might as well be elves and hobbits throwing fireballs and magic missles. But I totally understand that mileage may vary in this regard. I will never tell anyone what they should like. I just respectfully say it doesn't really matter to me and I still think its great fun.

BTW, why did they build the death star with a vent that led directly to the reaction chamber so that a single torpedo could blow the whole thing?

Both ME 1 and ME 2 are science fantasy really.  The sheer number of suprisingly humanoid-looking aliens clinches it by itself.  The thing is, ME 1 had at least a nodding aquaintence with real-world reality (shields more kinetic barriers like Dune than force fields from Star Trek, helmets in hostile enviroments, armor).  Aside from the Mass Effect field "magic system", it tried to stay somewhat within the laws of reality as we understand them.   ME 2 was far more "reroute auxillary power through Jeffries tube 4 to align the main deflector dish!"

I swear if there's a half-quarian first officer in ME 3...

Science fantasy is a good way to interpret Mass Effect, but for me it is somewhat of an anomaly.

The quasi-science they use to justify the technological systems in place are somewhat grounded in explanation and in use, more so than Star Wars or Star Trek. Avoidance of common tripping points such as force fields, lasers and teleporters lend to this aspect. But they are certainly entertaining a far off world in terms of technology. Culturally, and socially, the universe created by Bioware take many queues from contemporary society. Human behavior and common conflicts still exist in this future, enough that living in this galaxy seems reasonable enough for modern day humanity.
But there are also a lot of clear inspirations drawn from classic fantasy, not so much more modern darker fantasy. ME's storytelling and premise have a lot of roots in the Tolkien family of fantasy. A commune of a few, distinct races, a threat that is very mysterious and powerful, a world that is larger than we ever get to see. Humanity takes a role as a powerful but new race. Bioware has obviously translated some of these ideas from fantasy into ME.

[Il Divo]

Delta_Echo wrote...

 In this I disagree.
This is the basis  for making the impossible possible in this universe while its "magic like"  its still subject to limitations. How things work in regards to eezo is very well structured and explained, at least in the first game. And Mass Effects have limits which is key!  For anything to have meaning in Fiction there must be rules and limits otherwise consequences become meaningless ( like Death for instance? gee)

I say it's magic-like because it seemed intendedmore  to create a new gameplay mechanic (casters, if you will) than to add anyything to the realism or the setting. Would Mass Effect really be that much worse if they had made it without biotics? I personally think not.

Regardless, I think the notion of limitations is meaningless if it's all intended for cinematic effect. That Bioware tells me there are certain things mass effect cannot do is irrelevant (for me at least) when they've just shown me its capable of teleportation, telekinesis, among other things. Even if the science hasn't been presented to me, if someone were to ask whether I consider resurrection to be outside the scope of Mass Effect technology, I would personally say 'no'.

 In the second it begins to morph into something disturbingly like "the Force" becoming more magic like and breaking the framework established in the first game, with no explanations or  BS explanations. So much for continuity.

Where did Bioware establish that resurrection would never be possible?

[Delta_Echo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I love real sci fi. I get annoyed when awesome series like Firefly fail because they don't have the pew pew of Star Wars lasers. That said, I do still love Star Wars. So I do feel ya here.

Was ME1 more sci fi than ME2? Maaybe. You still had sound in space and killer robots and aliens who were really just humans spray-painted blue. To me they might as well be elves and hobbits throwing fireballs and magic missles. But I totally understand that mileage may vary in this regard. I will never tell anyone what they should like. I just respectfully say it doesn't really matter to me and I still think its great fun.

BTW, why did they build the death star with a vent that led directly to the reaction chamber so that a single torpedo could blow the whole thing?

I personally am not a huge Star Wars fan because its a fantasy in space and kind of an immature one.  Lucas himself said the original story was supposed to be a childrens story. After that it just became a  revenue stream. 

Yeah I noticed the aliens are basically human too, that's a pretty common space opera trope I can live with. I definately appreciate things like kinetic weapons instead of Phasers and photo torpedoes. The killer robots (geth) had a very detailed background story for their existance  so that wasn't a problem for me, it wasn't just oh no the killer robots are attacking we must stop them!

The point is the more details a fictional world has the more real it is. For everything you change from reality I like to have an explanation. I loved the codex  because I care about the details.  ME did this wonderfully, the world has huge and immersive because of the details. The hows and whys were well thought out and explained, even if everything wasn't perfect. 

ME2 exchanged this for a the whizz bang dramatic effects that completely ignored the framework of the universe of the first game. I hate it when a story contradicts itself more than just about anything. Small things I can overlook and relating to game mechanics I can overlook. I'm not a fan of the heatsinks from a story perspective but I can understand why it was done. Kinetic Barriers becoming force fields a la star trek/stargate and protecting you from everything when the codex specifically states that they can't do that? That's  just poor writing except I doubt it was the writers who made the decision. So we have several gaping holes in the Cargo bay of the Normandy but I can still walk around in shirt sleeves? Fantastic! And who needs a sealed combat suit to protect you from the abseloute zero temperatures and radiation of deep space, a hospital mask will do, after all we're all super heroes here.  I could be accused of nit picking for these issues but they're just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. I have several more but most people who disagree with me have already demonstrated they don't care how many concrete examples I could come up with.

And no I don't hate BW I don't hate the game, I'm just disappointed it didn't meet the potential set by the first game.
Yes I agree gameplay was improved, but there are plenty of FPS games out there that play better, I play BW games for the story. 





  

[Christmas Ape]

Il Divo wrote...

Would Mass Effect really be that much worse if they had made it without biotics? I personally think not.

I remain personally convinced that ME3 will touch rather heavily on biotics - as the previous two have done - but in this case as specifically regards the Reapers. The masters of mass effect technology, building biotically enhanced combat drones, the Derelict Reaper's effect on the Cerberus team when the only thing active was the mass effect core...there's something going on behind the scenes with biotics and Reapers. They're either doing a great job of hinting at it or I'm reading too much into it.

[Delta_Echo]

Il Divo wrote...


I say it's magic-like because it seemed intendedmore  to create a new gameplay mechanic (casters, if you will) than to add anyything to the realism or the setting. Would Mass Effect really be that much worse if they had made it without biotics? I personally think not.

From a purely storytelling point no, but from a gameplay perspective of course it would. Also Biotics are just a small part of the Mass Effect that defines this fictional universe. And they were woven into the universe quite well. The way they were altered in the second game  doesn't fit  quite so well.

Regardless, I think the notion of limitations is meaningless if it's all intended for cinematic effect. That Bioware tells me there are certain things mass effect cannot do is irrelevant (for me at least) when they've just shown me its capable of teleportation, telekinesis, among other things. Even if the science hasn't been presented to me, if someone were to ask whether I consider resurrection to be outside the scope of Mass Effect technology, I would personally say 'no'.

If there are no limitations than consequences have no meaning. We can just undo the resulting consequences of actions events with our super powerful tech/magic whatever, this is like poor munckin role playing. If consequences have no meaning than who gives a **** about the conflict, we can just alter reality to whatever we want regardless of what has happened. If thats true and conflict doesn't matter than why even bother with a story? Stories  are about conflicts.

If the conflict doesn't matter the story doesn't matter and lets just go shoot **** up, it doesn't matter why, SLPOSHUNS are fun! And here we have the state of most video games.

If BW were to trade good story telling for shallow cinematic effect, it would take them away what made them a unique and great game developer. I hope they don't move anymore in this direction, I really care about the why and the how of conflicts in stories.

Where did Bioware establish that resurrection would never be possible?

 So you have to establish that death is permanent rather having a good damn explanation for how it isn't??

 Death is the ultimate consequence for just about everybody real and fictional and removing death as a consequence really trivializes the whole conflict without really good explanation. ME2 really bungled this. The shameful thing is that it was completely unnecessary  and didn't seem to have any other purpose than a marketing ploy. Shepard is Dead!!! Oh the drama!!

Modifié par Delta_Echo, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:54 .

[IoCaster]

Xeranx wrote...

So as I did then, I will do so now and blame the suits.  I blame EA.  I mean why blow millions of dollars on a commercial spot during the most watched football game of the season?  Especially for a developer that has progressed as much as it has mostly due to word of mouth?  

Registration required:
Electronic Arts is to cut its television advertising budget "substantially" as it refocuses its investment partly into online marketing, but mostly into making "good games"

I wonder if they didn't get as much 'bang for the buck' with the ME2 ads as they expected. From the available information it doesn't seem that ME2 sold significantly more copies of the game than ME, if it actually outsold it. All of the pre-release hype and demos of the improved shooter gameplay, that seemed to be targeted at reeling in the console TPS/FPS crowd, doesn't seem to have paid off. Oh well, maybe they'll refocus their efforts on developing a coherent story/plot for ME3.

[Il Divo]

Delta_Echo wrote...
From a purely storytelling point no, but from a gameplay perspective of course it would. Also Biotics are just a small part of the Mass Effect that defines this fictional universe. And they were woven into the universe quite well. The way they were altered in the second game  doesn't fit  quite so well.

Even from a pure story-telling point , it's still needless. It was created to be the science equivalent of magic. Much like how Asari are the equivalent of elves: both have incredibly long lifespans, an affinity for magic/biotics, and are slow to build relationships. Mass Effect makes clear how advanced technology such as the relays are necessary for the plot. If biotics were removed, all we would need to change is Benezia's death scene. It was created to be 'cool'.

If there are no limitations than consequences have no meaning. We can just undo the resulting consequences of actions events with our super powerful tech/magic whatever, this is like poor munckin role playing. If consequences have no meaning than who gives a **** about the conflict, we can just alter reality to whatever we want regardless of what has happened. If thats true and conflict doesn't matter than why even bother with a story? Stories  are about conflicts. 

Bioware had to break down the all the realistic limitations of our current time in order to establish the Mass Effect setting. Element Zero is a resource which when struck with electricity is capable of dramatically increasing or decreasing the mass of an object. We as the audience are expected to accept this and everything that comes with this. As I said before, if someone asked me if I found resurrection unrealistic in the Mass Effect setting, I would respond 'no'. No, I do not find it unrealistic in a pseudo-Star Wars universe where mind controlling ships, the equivalent of space magic, and sound in a vacuum are the norm.

I would understand your criticism if we had reason to think that anyone could be brought back to life. It took Cerberus two years, a team of top scientists, over 4 billion credits, and alot of luck to revive Shepard. Nothing has indicated that this can or will be done with absolutely anyone. Would an explanation have been nice? I think so. But as it stands, I don't find resurrection unreasonable given all the other advanced technological impossibilities, explanation or not.

 Death is the ultimate consequence for just about everybody real and fictional and removing death as a consequence really trivializes the whole conflict without really good explanation. ME2 really bungled this. The shameful thing is that it was completely unnecessary  and didn't seem to have any other purpose than a marketing ploy. Shepard is Dead!!! Oh the drama!!

The resurrection allowed us to observe Shepard in a setting which we had never before experienced in Mass Effect 1. The characters, setting, and focus were all contrasted with what we'd seen in the original. You are in the spotlight through Mass Effect. In Mass Effect 2, you're a nobody.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juillet 2010 - 02:00 .

[Il Divo]

Christmas Ape wrote...
I remain personally convinced that ME3 will touch rather heavily on biotics - as the previous two have done - but in this case as specifically regards the Reapers. The masters of mass effect technology, building biotically enhanced combat drones, the Derelict Reaper's effect on the Cerberus team when the only thing active was the mass effect core...there's something going on behind the scenes with biotics and Reapers. They're either doing a great job of hinting at it or I'm reading too much into it.

I personally am excited (and hoping) that we do get to find out more about indoctrination and the Reapers in general. We've seen second-hand how advanced their technology is. I'm much more curious to fight/learn about them first-hand. The underlined captures at least my feelings on the Reapers. They may be deadly and out to destroy us, but I can't help wondering what it is that brought this entire conflict into existence. I want to know the full extent of their technology.

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...
Bioware had to break down the all the realistic limitations of our current time in order to establish the Mass Effect setting. Element Zero is a resource which when struck with electricity is capable of dramatically increasing or decreasing the mass of an object. We as the audience are expected to accept this and everything that comes with this. As I said before, if someone asked me if I found resurrection unrealistic in the Mass Effect setting, I would respond 'no'. No, I do not find it unrealistic in a pseudo-Star Wars universe where mind controlling ships, the equivalent of space magic, and sound in a vacuum are the norm.

Mind controlling ships are Sufficiently Advanced Aliens who also call themselves gods.  We can give the Big Bad some leeway there, considering they pretty much are the gods of the ME universe.

Sound in a vacuum is the joy of cinematography and entertainment.

You cannot explain Shepard's resurrection even if you tried.

I would understand your criticism if we had reason to think that anyone could be brought back to life. It took Cerberus two years, a team of top scientists, over 4 billion credits, and alot of luck to revive Shepard. Nothing has indicated that this can or will be done with absolutely anyone. Would an explanation have been nice? I think so. But as it stands, I don't find resurrection unreasonable given all the other advanced technological impossibilities, explanation or not.

Which scientists? Why 4 billion?  How did you know it was luck, and not rage, or ingenuity?

Nothing indicated it was even believable in the first place.

What other advanced technological impossibilities were so not described as much or more than Shepard's resurrection that you could buy, so that you could simply wave your hand at it?

The resurrection allowed us to observe Shepard in a setting which we had never before experienced in Mass Effect 1. The characters, setting, and focus were all contrasted with what we'd seen in the original. You are in the spotlight through Mass Effect. In Mass Effect 2, you're a nobody.

So does putting Shepard in a coma.  Or having memory loss. Or any other actually believable and clichéd situations if they were going to do something as retarded as rebooting the plot before there was one, just to introduce the new opposing force.  This is like killing Nihlus, but in the most retarded, stupidest, marketing angle-only way, "We're going to show you, and tell you...", which generates so many questions than it helps just to show our new enemy, (Psst: our new enemy flies around in a cylinder and shoots laser beams), and put Shepard in a different position.

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...
Mind controlling ships are Sufficiently Advanced Aliens who also call themselves gods.  We can give the Big Bad some leeway there, considering they pretty much are the gods of the ME universe.

Sound in a vacuum is the joy of cinematography and entertainment.

You cannot explain Shepard's resurrection even if you tried.

Don't have time to respond to the rest, so I'll save it for tomorrow.

As for this, I ask another question: could you provide an explanation for biotics, mass effect relays, giant sentient plants, and telepathic asari? I ask because during our last 'discussion' you discounted any and all evidence which relied on codex entries. I don't recall Kaidan or any other npc explaining to me what a 'Mass Effect field' is. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:03 .

[wulf3n]

smudboy wrote...
So does putting Shepard in a coma.  Or having memory loss. Or any other actually believable and clichéd situations if they were going to do something as retarded as rebooting the plot before there was one, just to introduce the new opposing force. 

 

I would have preferred if Shepard were captured by the Collectors. Spent 2 years, getting experimented on by the Collectors, maybe learn a bit about their motives, then be rescued by a Cerberus Strike Team. Not a brilliant masterpiece of writing, but would have satisfied biowares requirements of having shepard absent for 2 years, be obliged to cerberus, and allow us to change our class if we wanted

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Mind controlling ships are Sufficiently Advanced Aliens who also call themselves gods.  We can give the Big Bad some leeway there, considering they pretty much are the gods of the ME universe.

Sound in a vacuum is the joy of cinematography and entertainment.

You cannot explain Shepard's resurrection even if you tried.

Don't have time to respond to the rest, so I'll save it for tomorrow.

As for this, I ask another question: could you provide an explanation for biotics, mass effect relays, giant sentient plants, and telepathic asari? I ask because during our last 'discussion' you discounted any and all evidence which relied on codex entries. I don't recall Kaidan or any other npc explaining to me what a 'Mass Effect field' is. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.  

Feigning intelligence I can't.

It can, however point to it's effects.  I can see it do what it's supposed to do.  It makes things move telekinetically.  It has easily observable effects.  It is widely known and various species have this ability.  It is the equivalent of any technology that is part of the mythos of the narrative.  It is common.

There is no Resurrection Machine.  No Unobtainium compound.  No Mass Effect fields.  No device of any sort.  No team of scientists specialized in anything we're told they could be specialists in.  No personificatio nof Mr. Resurrection.  No clear understanding of how Shepard died, how they were stored, and how they were brought back.  Whereas ME fields make mass higher or lower, restoring a human body from unexplained and ridiculously impossible conditions after several years is farcical.  All we get are glowing clamps that attach to Shepard's body in a matter of seconds in a quick cutscene, blue mystery fluid, robotic surgical arms cutting something, for an operation that took 2 years, and a medical head who can't believe Shepard's alive.  We get useless if not incorrect audio logs.  We get a building of people being killed by mechs.  We get a stupid if not illogical plot to kill these people, just to introduce a character and grant a tutorial.  It is so unbelievably stupid, marginally intelligent 9 year olds would hang their head in shame.

[Delta_Echo]

Il Divo wrote...

Delta_Echo wrote...
From a purely storytelling point no, but from a gameplay perspective of course it would. Also Biotics are just a small part of the Mass Effect that defines this fictional universe. And they were woven into the universe quite well. The way they were altered in the second game  doesn't fit  quite so well.

Even from a pure story-telling point , it's still needless. It was created to be the science equivalent of magic. Much like how Asari are the equivalent of elves: both have incredibly long lifespans, an affinity for magic/biotics, and are slow to build relationships. Mass Effect makes clear how advanced technology such as the relays are necessary for the plot. If biotics were removed, all we would need to change is Benezia's death scene. It was created to be 'cool'.

We are basically in agreement on this point in regards to biotics and the story and the ME universe.
But this is a game and the "magic" was added to it. It adds alot to the gameplay and integrates with the with the rest of the lore well  so kudos  BW for a well thought out gameplay mechanic that fits into the story. In  ME1 anyway.

Bioware had to break down the all the realistic limitations of our current time in order to establish the Mass Effect setting. Element Zero is a resource which when struck with electricity is capable of dramatically increasing or decreasing the mass of an object. We as the audience are expected to accept this and everything that comes with this. As I said before, if someone asked me if I found resurrection unrealistic in the Mass Effect setting, I would respond 'no'. No, I do not find it unrealistic in a pseudo-Star Wars universe where mind controlling ships, the equivalent of space magic, and sound in a vacuum are the norm.

 

Sci-Fi, Space Opera, Fantasy, always chucks known natural laws  out the window. They than have to establish a new set rules, this is a literary concept known as world building. It still must have limitations and consequences and my personal preference is that the more detailed the better. And most  importantly they have to fit together. Establishing the laws of your fictional world and than breaking them is no less jarring than breaking natural laws in a story set in contemporary setting. If I was reading a  Tom Clancy novel in which a character walked away after being caught in a nulcear blast  or run over by a tank with no explanation or a really stupid one I would drop the book right there, as would most serious readers. Fiction that contradicts itself is bad fiction. Also if it becomes apparent that world being built is ridiculous  where things like death have no consequence I wouldn't put much more time into it. That is why when well established fictional world takes a corkscrew of turns that completely invalidates its own established rules it is extremly frustrating. 

And guess we'll have to disagree on the whole death thing. I know that resurrection was never established as being impossible but that is one thing really shouldn't necessary. If Death isn't a big deal than nothing is, we're back to limitations and meaning in fiction. Trivializing death is on a whole different level of suspension of disbelief than pretty much anything. Honestly any fiction that renders Death an irrelavent consequence is pretty juvenile. And like I said, the fact that this was done for some advertising melodrama  and a means of railroading your character into a certain position was extremely unfortunate. 

I would understand your criticism if we had reason to think that anyone could be brought back to life. It took Cerberus two years, a team of top scientists, over 4 billion credits, and alot of luck to revive Shepard. Nothing has indicated that this can or will be done with absolutely anyone. Would an explanation have been nice? I think so. But as it stands, I don't find resurrection unreasonable given all the other advanced technological impossibilities, explanation or not.

Ok  if I were to treat death as such a trivial inconveniance as say a broken bone, I ask why has death not been "cured" long ago by one othe other advanced races? You know the ones who have had space faring technologies for thousands of years? Cerberus shows up on the scene throws some money at the problem and boom! Death cured! Poor writing, but I doubt it was the writers choice to do this. 

The resurrection allowed us to observe Shepard in a setting which we had never before experienced in Mass Effect 1. The characters, setting, and focus were all contrasted with what we'd seen in the original. You are in the spotlight through Mass Effect. In Mass Effect 2, you're a nobody.

Sheperd could been introduced to such a setting in a way that was little less thoughtless and lazy. It could have been part of of the story and the game if fewer resources were wasted on elements that were completely inconsequential to the plot. As it was: Boom your were dead now your not and now you work for Cereberus mkay?

Modifié par Delta_Echo, 22 juillet 2010 - 03:30 .

[darth_lopez]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...


BTW, why did they build the death star with a vent that led directly to the reaction chamber so that a single torpedo could blow the whole thing?

as an avid star wars fan the best i can do is say this.

the only reason we have comes from Family Guy yes i said it Blue Harvest has a moderately Believable reason. Though why the 1 exhaust vent on the thing lead straight to it's core i will never understand @.@ 

it is quite possibly the Biggest plot whole/plot advancement excuse ever.

[wulf3n]

darth_lopez wrote...
it is quite possibly the Biggest plot whole/plot advancement excuse ever.

I wouldn't say its a plot hole, a very bad decision yes, but not a plot hole. Completely speculation, but maybe the amount of heat generated when firing the death start requires a direct means of venting whatever!

But really it's just that they over estimated their defenses and under estimated the Rebellion, you may have a gun pointed at me, but if i honestly believe you can't hit the side of a barn, i may choose not to wear body armor.

[thq95]

I liked ME2, but I thought the story was way better in ME1. I played through ME1 about 7 or 8 times, but I don't see myself doing the same for ME2. The ME2 dialogue was pretty choppy and some of the story seemed to conflict or be completely irrelevant at times. ME2 just kinda threw you in levels and had npcs die left and right while you sprayed bullets at everything. For me the storyline was too much shooter and not enough rpg.

[glacier1701]

IoCaster wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

So as I did then, I will do so now and blame the suits.  I blame EA.  I mean why blow millions of dollars on a commercial spot during the most watched football game of the season?  Especially for a developer that has progressed as much as it has mostly due to word of mouth?  

Registration required:
Electronic Arts is to cut its television advertising budget "substantially" as it refocuses its investment partly into online marketing, but mostly into making "good games"

I wonder if they didn't get as much 'bang for the buck' with the ME2 ads as they expected. From the available information it doesn't seem that ME2 sold significantly more copies of the game than ME, if it actually outsold it. All of the pre-release hype and demos of the improved shooter gameplay, that seemed to be targeted at reeling in the console TPS/FPS crowd, doesn't seem to have paid off. Oh well, maybe they'll refocus their efforts on developing a coherent story/plot for ME3.

Well I think its more to do with the fact that a lot of the sales were to console users who, traditionally, have a shorter attention span and thus did not spread the word about the game. Coupled with the way that for almost a year prior to that with the way ME1 fans were told they did not matter it really comes down as being no surprise that sales are not as they might have hoped. Yet the reduction in TV advertising has, I think, more to do with the fact that more and more people spend less and less time watching tv than ever before. We have more things to do now.

[darth_lopez]

smudboy wrote...

There is no Resurrection Machine.  No Unobtainium compound.  No Mass Effect fields.  No device of any sort.  No team of scientists specialized in anything we're told they could be specialists in.  No personificatio nof Mr. Resurrection.  No clear understanding of how Shepard died, how they were stored, and how they were brought back.  Whereas ME fields make mass higher or lower, restoring a human body from unexplained and ridiculously impossible conditions after several years is farcical.  All we get are glowing clamps that attach to Shepard's body in a matter of seconds in a quick cutscene, blue mystery fluid, robotic surgical arms cutting something, for an operation that took 2 years, and a medical head who can't believe Shepard's alive.  We get useless if not incorrect audio logs.  We get a building of people being killed by mechs.  We get a stupid if not illogical plot to kill these people, just to introduce a character and grant a tutorial.  It is so unbelievably stupid, marginally intelligent 9 year olds would hang their head in shame.

now that i actually went back and read a little more (something smud should do more often)

do you have to see a plot device to be there?


no you don't they exist deal with it plus we did see the scientists we saw the workers we saw them die. we saw pieces of the machinery. and we saw the facility get destroyed what more do you need?

do we need to see the entire process of Krogan cloning to know it exists?

though on a side note the words marginally intelligent smud still imply retardation. wich is still no suprise that retards would not understand the mass effect universe i hold to that.

and i hold to the point that realistically unobtanium may be discovered. 

i will also point out this kind of research is illegal inside citadel space that is why it hasn't been done yet.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 22 juillet 2010 - 05:26 .

[darth_lopez]

wulf3n wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...
it is quite possibly the Biggest plot whole/plot advancement excuse ever.

I wouldn't say its a plot hole, a very bad decision yes, but not a plot hole. Completely speculation, but maybe the amount of heat generated when firing the death start requires a direct means of venting whatever!

But really it's just that they over estimated their defenses and under estimated the Rebellion, you may have a gun pointed at me, but if i honestly believe you can't hit the side of a barn, i may choose not to wear body armor.

good point. though later variants of the Beam didn't need the ports >.> granted they were probably better optimized. if you like the death star you should look up the Eclipse class Super Star Destroyers and Sovereign class

[darth_lopez]

Delta_Echo wrote...

 So you have to establish that death is permanent rather having a good damn explanation for how it isn't??

 Death is the ultimate consequence for just about everybody real and fictional and removing death as a consequence really trivializes the whole conflict without really good explanation.

argument doesn't hold under scrutiny.



Star Gate SG-1 has brought people back to life if i remember correctly so has the actual movie Star gate While an explanation accompanies it often not all of them are good. 

Edit: and an addition as i saw inception yesterday It Too Brings folks back from the dead. 2 characters in particular

it's actually a trend in more popular sci-fi that variously important characters do not 'die' or can be ressurected. often with out very good reasons. infact i can think up plenty  from star wars expanded universe right now

Emporer Palpatine uses the force while dead to posses a clone.
a darkside ritual intended to bring Marko Ragnos Back in Jedi knight: Jedi Academy is seen
Force Ghosts are neither living nor dead. they are essentially the life force of the specific jedi or sith they resemble and for all intents and purpose keep that particular alive so that they may teach longer.
Darth Sion technically a zombie
Numerous other dark side rituals that do work and void life by simply means of 'The Force'
The Revival of the Apprentice in darth vaders lab.
Boba Fett Climbs out of the sarlacc a feet only done 1 other time by a jedi. who went in intentionally
Shaak-ti's appaerance in the force unleashed (fyi she was shown to be decapitated by grievous during episode three watch the deleted scenes)


now i'm not sure if they revive people constantly in star trek but i do know there are advanced races in star trek with similar healing capabilities.

death is often trivialized in sci-fi. even the New Transofrmers movie (yes it's a sci-fi) Brings Optimus Prime back to life. again somethign that occurs numerous times in almost every transformers incarnation. and in the latest is brought optimus and megatron back to life.

now then what other....Oh HALO no organism should be able to survive re-entry and impact. Even a spartan Explain chief please because the answer Luck is all i get from the halo universe.

we could talk about fallout and how despite the majority of your body being crippled you can simply nap to restore health or drink from a toilet (to my understanding never played that game) 

we could also talk about Dragon Ages Dark Ritual to get out of dying or the fact you can import a dead character to awakenings and still play as him/her. 



Death is trivialized in alot of sci-fi it occurs more frequently in sci-fi games however and Mass effect did a better job explaining it than most

it wasn't shepards Luck, the force, or mystical alien technology it was cutting edge experimental technology that is considered illegal in citadel space. again your argument here holds no value except when evaluated realisticly with the real boundries of life. if you think death shouldn't be trivialized maybe you should ask for them to decrease maximum age for most sci-fi humans from 175 to 99 years old. 

Modifié par darth_lopez, 22 juillet 2010 - 06:00 .

[Iakus]

darth_lopez wrote...
Star Gate SG-1 has brought people back to life if i remember correctly so has the actual movie Star gate While an explanation accompanies it often not all of them are good. 

By the end of it's run, it had become a joke on the show about how often Dr Jackson dies

it's actually a trend in more popular sci-fi that variously important characters do not 'die' or can be ressurected. often with out very good reasons. infact i can think up plenty  from star wars expanded universe right now

Emporer Palpatine uses the force while dead to posses a clone.
a darkside ritual intended to bring Marko Ragnos Back in Jedi knight: Jedi Academy is seen
Force Ghosts are neither living nor dead. they are essentially the life force of the specific jedi or sith they resemble and for all intents and purpose keep that particular alive so that they may teach longer.
Darth Sion technically a zombie
Numerous other dark side rituals that do work and void life by simply means of 'The Force'
The Revival of the Apprentice in darth vaders lab.
Boba Fett Climbs out of the sarlacc a feet only done 1 other time by a jedi. who went in intentionally
Shaak-ti's appaerance in the force unleashed (fyi she was shown to be decapitated by grievous during episode three watch the deleted scenes)

I'm not familiar with all of these examples or how canon they are.  But most of them seem to resort to the Force, an in-universe system to manipulate life and "what binds the universe together"   Biotics, owever, is not the FOoce, however some may compare them.

now i'm not sure if they revive people constantly in star trek but i do know there are advanced races in star trek with similar healing capabilities.

More often they simply time-travel to retroactively undo the death.  I guess Shepard's fate could have been cheesier...

death is often trivialized in sci-fi. even the New Transofrmers movie (yes it's a sci-fi) Brings Optimus Prime back to life. again somethign that occurs numerous times in almost every transformers incarnation. and in the latest is brought optimus and megatron back to life.

"It's no worse than what the Transformers did???"

now then what other....Oh HALO no organism should be able to survive re-entry and impact. Even a spartan Explain chief please because the answer Luck is all i get from the halo universe.

we could talk about fallout and how despite the majority of your body being crippled you can simply nap to restore health or drink from a toilet (to my understanding never played that game) 

we could also talk about Dragon Ages Dark Ritual to get out of dying or the fact you can import a dead character to awakenings and still play as him/her. 

"All the other kids are doing it" never worked for me, even when I was a kid  and using that line myself

Awakenings actually caused some anger with players, feeling it cheapened the Warden's sacrifice and made death seem trivial (sound familiar?) 

The Dark Ritual, besides being magic, not science, is likely to have repercussions in future games, even if it spares the Grey Wardens lives in the short term.

Death is trivialized in alot of sci-fi it occurs more frequently in sci-fi games however and Mass effect did a better job explaining it than most

it wasn't shepards Luck, the force, or mystical alien technology it was cutting edge experimental technology that is considered illegal in citadel space. again your argument here holds no value except when evaluated realisticly with the real boundries of life. if you think death shouldn't be trivialized maybe you should ask for them to decrease maximum age for most sci-fi humans from 175 to 99 years old. 

In science fiction, it makes sense that death can be held at bay longer.  Technological marvels can cure disease, heal terrible injuries, even revive the recently deceased.  Buying into the fact that futuristic technologies can extend what modern medicine can do makes sense.  It's simple suspension of disbelief.  However, the circumstances of Shepard's death and the time taken to revive him goes far beyond mere suspension of disbelief and into "oh come ON!" territory.  Under different circumstances, death for a few minutes, hours, even a day or so (provided "mystical alien technology" was clearly involved) could be bought.  Given what happened in the game, Shep's revival makes as much sense as TIM simply buying a few thousand gold pieces worth of diamonds and hiring a high-level cleric.

If there's going to be any kind of plausibility in an sf story beyond "it's just a game", there should always be a line beyond which there is no turning back.  A reset button, regardless of how expensive it may be, is a cheap gimmick.

[RiouHotaru]

...Cheap gimmick as opposed to what? Shepard fell into a planet and smashed into the surface, and was left there for whatever length of time until the Blue Suns found him/her and scooped up the remains into a stasis pod.



Exactly HOW do you proceed from there? Or is that you would've preferred a different reset button? Also, you have to consider that a reset button, from a gameplay standpoint was necessary due to just how different the game systems are between ME1 and ME2. They are essentially two completely different games, and therefore some significant changes had to be made.



To facilitate this change, they implimented a reset button that worked within the plot, and in fact, SET UP the plot for the game. I suppose I don't understand how this was a failure of any kind.

[darth_lopez]

iakus wrote...
 However, the circumstances of Shepard's death and the time taken to revive him goes far beyond mere suspension of disbelief and into "oh come ON!" territory.  Under different circumstances, death for a few minutes, hours, even a day or so (provided "mystical alien technology" was clearly involved) could be bought.  Given what happened in the game, Shep's revival makes as much sense as TIM simply buying a few thousand gold pieces worth of diamonds and hiring a high-level cleric.

If there's going to be any kind of plausibility in an sf story beyond "it's just a game", there should always be a line beyond which there is no turning back.  A reset button, regardless of how expensive it may be, is a cheap gimmick.

don't get me wrong i never said i wasn't cheap or unacceptable i was simply saying that the argument 

Death is the ultimate consequence for just about everybody real and fictional

under scrutiny in any real sci-fi universe, or even most fantasies, falls short. and mass effect did do a better job explaning it than Halo you gotta give me that XD that was simply luck and it should be noted that chief's life signs did bottom out to zero >.>

my personal opinion of the matter of shepards revival is that it was a cop out and i wasn't too fond of it i'm still not too fond of it. 

Modifié par darth_lopez, 22 juillet 2010 - 07:31 .

[Mister Mida]

Darth Lopez, the deleted scene of Grievous killing Shaak Ti is not canon. It was an earlier version of the scene of Anakin and Obi-wan fighting Grievous' bodyguards on the ship's bridge after killing Dooku.