931 réponses à ce sujet

[Nhani]

Huh, having read through most of the thread (and looking at the Created n time ago stamps) I think we could probably call this a Lazarus thread at this point. I realize this makes me rather late to the party, but since you all got me started thinking about all this now, you get to endure me babbling about it.

Honestly, I'd like to throw it out that - in my opinion, anyhow - Mass Effect isn't so much Science Fiction as Science Fantasy: while it has a high tech, futuristic setting.. it has far more in common with Star Wars (also Science Fantasy) than Star Trek (actual sci-fi). Elements such as the Reapers or Shepard's ressurection is much less about the technical aspect and more about the metaphors.

That said, I thought the sequence showing Shepard being rebuilt provided enough visual implications to suggest how the whole method was possible; while the skeleton was clearly quite shattered, much of the biological mass and organs seemed resonably intact (we're shown a blood vessel and the heart as examples). Between those scenes and Miranda's logs, I think there's enough to extrapolate the basis of their two-pronged attempts and how it effectively came down to luck, determination and resources. From what it sounded, too, Miranda wasn't entirely certain Shepards mind would be entirely intact, seeing the "quizzes".

Either way, the implication seems to be that they were able to regenerate most of the tissue (through some blue fluid) and then utilized cybernetics to either replace or restart the given processes. There's still plenty of details we'd have to fudge, of course - how the body seems more burnt than frozen (Bogsnot1's guesstimate of Mach 2.5 would ammount for friction, but not that much of it, I would think), how enough matter survived both the burning and the freezing processes intact (if the former removed the water, it wouldn't be damaging. The former removing the water, however, definitely would be), what the blue liquid was and how it could un-burn tissue and all that. That part, however, is simply disblief that has to be suspended.

Mass Effect routinely goes against its own claims and codex as far as tech and phenomenon is concerned, if you want to find gaps in it.. there are whole truckloads. Much of the provided background has pretty obviously been negated for either visual impact or sheer Rule of Cool.

From a narrative standpoint, Shepards "death" solves a number of problems - it provides an easy startoff point for people who never played the first game, conveniently explains how all the things Shepard kicks up in Mass Effect 1 effectively dies down and is mostly ignored in spite of the triumphant ending and explains why everything "we" started was put on hold or aborted.

Seeing how the narrative punchline of Mass Effect 2 seemed to be that everyone you bring - even your own character - might die, starting it off with seeing both Shepard and the Normandy effectively die starts the plot off in that. While both are, technically, restored, it's not without cost - all the time and momentum is gone, relationships have waned and once dependable people accuse Shepard of betrayal. Seeing what BioWare set out to acomplish, I think Shepards alledged death was probably one of the better solutions in encompassing all they wanted. That said.. I definitely think they didn't really take it nearly as far as they could have, but at some point it ends up going out of scope and out of scale.

To sum all this up (and to end my ramblings - sorry about that, habit) I think it'd be fair to say that part of the point with with Shepards ressurection actually is its impossiblity - it's a one-time thing, we get to cheat death this once, and that's it. Due to the resources needed, the chance required to make it possible.. it won't happen again. If anything, I think BioWares' failing in that is less about not explaining it and more about not making it clear enough how much of a one-time thing it was.

[rolson00]

erm didnt jacob or someone else say that shepard was as close to death as anyone can possibly be?

[Nhani]

rolson00 wrote...

erm didnt jacob or someone else say that shepard was as close to death as anyone can possibly be?

I think whether Shepard was "Truly Dead" or not is entirely a personal definition issue. From what we're shown, the body brought back is severely damaged - we see parts that look between cooked and burned - much of the skeleton has all but shattered and there's no process or activity to speak of until Cerberus starts kicking it back into working order.

Clearly there was enough left that they could start it back up again with some help after repairing enough of it though, so its down to semantics.

[Raxxman]

Nhani wrote...
Star Trek (actual sci-fi).

Sorry what? 

Trek is Sci Fa through and through. Its design brief was cowboys and indians in space.

Very little 'Science' shows in todays market are science fiction, as they would have to be written by scientists (or someone with a massive interest in reading cutting edge science journals, and the inteligence to understand multiple cutting edge theories in different schools, while retraining the creative spark to produce an entertaining narritve).

Simply put, the average punter doesn't want hard science, so we see very little of it.

A few examples of some Sci Fi in the truest definition would be Webers Honor series, and more or less everything done by Arthur C. Clarke.

Nothing wrong with Sci Fa mind.

[smudboy]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
1) Is the logic of Shepard being resurrected against the flow of logic in the plot?
2) Is it relevant?

Both points are debatable. Yes, until this point in the story, there is nothing suggesting such medical science exists. However, there is also nothing suggesting that there isn't. Arguing either point of view is equally pointless because it comes down to semantics, not logic.

Is it relevant? Personally, I think not. It was a plot device at the beginning of the story. Its not like a million marines suddenly appeared at the end of the final battle with no explanation.

The narrative shows Shepard depressurizing in space, losing oxygen, wiggling around, heading toward a planet.

Now here's where our brains kick in.  Within 2 minutes Shepard's dead.  His entire body is getting close to -273 degrees C.  He is slowly accelerating thousands of miles an hour toward a planet with hopefully no magnetosphere, or he's molecules.  Somehow his almost crystalized body survives impact on a frozen planet enough to be naturally peserved in an (wiki) ammonia and methane atmosphere, and somehow his broken helmet hasn't ruptured somehow, and neatly found itself 100 meters or so away from the rest of the conveniently placed Normandy rubble.  And somehow a mercenary group puts his not completely pulverized body in a stasis pod because the enemy who just attacked him, that find his body "oh so valuable" couldn't "Collect" it themselves.  Yet somehow he's described later by Jacob as "meat and tubes".

Now if you didn't have your brain kick in, that's fine.  The reason why it had to kick in is because the narrative didn't show us the effects of free fall onto a planet, so naturally we have to do some basic deduction.

As for your medical science statement, they haven't told us what kind of medical science there is, but they certainly show us.  We see glowing clamps on a body and blue fluid being injected, with robotic arms...cutting...stuff for some reason.  We then get poor technobabble from audio logs and a bunch of nonsense about Wilson.  The fact that people don't come back from the dead, especially in the manner presented, after 2 years, would tend to point out that "this has not been done before."

It doesn't matter if it's a million marines or just one.  If you're going to tell a story, plot devices or not, you do it right, or these kinds of questions happen.  Unless you turn your brain off and drink the Tupari.  Cause death?  It's a pretty popular topic in storytelling, I'd say #1.  Resurrection, zombies, vampires: these are topics rebutable writers stay away from, unless they know wtf they're doing.

[Nhani]

Raxxman wrote...

Nhani wrote...
Star Trek (actual sci-fi).

Sorry what? 

Trek is Sci Fa through and through. Its design brief was cowboys and indians in space.

Well it might have morphed over time, but Star Trek - to me atleast - generally doesn't dwelve that much in the land of Fantasy tropes - it doesn't do much in terms of Hero Journey or whatnot and is more about things like "Exploring the Human Condition" and that lane, which is far more a staple Sci-Fi element than a Fantasy one. That said, I agree it's not quite a full-fledged Science Fiction thing (I seem to recall Sci-Fi as a term took on a life of its own to divide the more in-depth Science Fiction from the lighter Sci-Fi drama).

I wouldn't call Cowboys and Indians Fantasy myself until the indians start pulling on magic spells and the cowboys have a chosen knight, so I don't really see Star Trek as much in the lines of Fantasy (atleast, not to the degree of Star Wars), but I realize to a point this is all semantics.

The main point I was trying to get across was that where Star Trek tends to seem obligated to invent technobabble to explain everything, Star Wars is more about the narrative metaphor, and I'd consider Mass Effect as a series far closer to the latter. 

Raxxman wrote...
Nothing wrong with Sci Fa mind.

Not at all 

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
Now here's where our brains kick in.  Within 2 minutes Shepard's dead.  His entire body is getting close to -273 degrees C.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure if we can count on that - if I recall, temperature loss is actually quite difficult in space as the only method you can readily expell heat is via radiation, and with an alledged surface temperature only as low as -22 in spite of its 9.5 AU distance from the local star, we could likely assume that the Amada system star has a noticeably higher output than that of our own sun.

Seeing how the exosphere is very low density, and the variable temperature of the thermosphere.. quick observation actually suggests it's more likely Shepard would've caught fire from going through a 1000+ degrees Celsius upper atmosphere than it is that he/she would've frozen down to absolute zero

Doesn't help the chances for anything to survive, of course, but rather to offer a spin on it.

[Raxxman]

smudboy wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
1) Is the logic of Shepard being resurrected against the flow of logic in the plot?
2) Is it relevant?

Both points are debatable. Yes, until this point in the story, there is nothing suggesting such medical science exists. However, there is also nothing suggesting that there isn't. Arguing either point of view is equally pointless because it comes down to semantics, not logic.

Is it relevant? Personally, I think not. It was a plot device at the beginning of the story. Its not like a million marines suddenly appeared at the end of the final battle with no explanation.

The narrative shows Shepard depressurizing in space, losing oxygen, wiggling around, heading toward a planet.

Now here's where our brains kick in.  Within 2 minutes Shepard's dead.  His entire body is getting close to -273 degrees C.  He is slowly accelerating thousands of miles an hour toward a planet with hopefully no magnetosphere, or he's molecules.  Somehow his almost crystalized body survives impact on a frozen planet enough to be naturally peserved in an (wiki) ammonia and methane atmosphere, and somehow his broken helmet hasn't ruptured somehow, and neatly found itself 100 meters or so away from the rest of the conveniently placed Normandy rubble.  And somehow a mercenary group puts his not completely pulverized body in a stasis pod because the enemy who just attacked him, that find his body "oh so valuable" couldn't "Collect" it themselves.  Yet somehow he's described later by Jacob as "meat and tubes".

1. You don't bleed off heat rapidly in space, because all heat loss has to be via radiation, not conduction or convection.

2. Shepard doesn't reach thousands of mph before he hit the planet, this has already been established by a Bioware employee.

3. Seeing as we see an aurora borealis effect on the planet (northen lights) we can conclude it does indeed have a magentosphere, as such an effect requires one.

4. Did it ever occur to you that Legion might of placed the helmet at the site of the crash? He has a peice of Shepards chest armour, he was clearly at the crash site before Shepard returned he might of collected the helmet, reached the crash site, and for whatever reason discarded it. I mean really, their are multiple possible explinations, and the compactness of the crash site itself is unrealistic anyhow. Maybe Bioware condensed the whole area so you didn't have to walk 20 odd miles between dogtags?

5. You're taking the description of a jarhead as absolute gospel? You don't understand how seeing shocking disformations can effect your memory, people who see relatives in intensive care often describe them as 'wires and tubes' in reference to the monitoring equipment and drips are so unlike what they usually see that that's all they remember. I'm sure if Mordin was around he'd of given you a significantly more scientific rundown.

Now if you didn't have your brain kick in, that's fine.  The reason why it had to kick in is because the narrative didn't show us the effects of free fall onto a planet, so naturally we have to do some basic deduction.

Modifié par Raxxman, 24 juillet 2010 - 12:40 .

[smudboy]

Raxxman wrote...
1. You don't bleed off heat rapidly in space, because all heat loss has to be via radiation, not conduction or convection.

"...and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil."

2. Shepard doesn't reach thousands of mph before he hit the planet, this has already been established by a Bioware employee.

And the math for this is where?  What's the terminal velocity?  What was the explosive velocity?  My calculations were based on Mars conditions.

3. Seeing as we see an aurora borealis effect on the planet (northen lights) we can conclude it does indeed have a magentosphere, as such an effect requires one.

Then Shepard's dust.

4. Did it ever occur to you that Legion might of placed the helmet at the site of the crash? He has a peice of Shepards chest armour, he was clearly at the crash site before Shepard returned he might of collected the helmet, reached the crash site, and for whatever reason discarded it. I mean really, their are multiple possible explinations, and the compactness of the crash site itself is unrealistic anyhow. Maybe Bioware condensed the whole area so you didn't have to walk 20 odd miles between dogtags?

Actually I never thought of that, probably because that's kind of stupid.  Legion could've done lots of things down there, too.  As could've the Blue Suns. Hell, they could've hid all those dog tags in perfectly unbroken crates.

5. You're taking the description of a jarhead as absolute gospel? You don't understand how seeing shocking disformations can effect your memory, people who see relatives in intensive care often describe them as 'wires and tubes' in reference to the monitoring equipment and drips are so unlike what they usually see that that's all they remember. I'm sure if Mordin was around he'd of given you a significantly more scientific rundown.

A jarhead?  You mean Jacob?

Okay, so now I'm questioning the validity of the narrative because Jacob is a jarhead.  Great.  Now I'm even more confused.

Yeah well Mordin wasn't around, so I have to work with what I'm given.

Now if you didn't have your brain kick in, that's fine.  The reason why it had to kick in is because the narrative didn't show us the effects of free fall onto a planet, so naturally we have to do some basic deduction.

What don't you get?  We see Shepard hurtling toward a planet after being blasted away by an explosion.  The fact that scene fades to black leads us to believe something happened to Shepard.  Like, hurtling toward a planet. 

Modifié par smudboy, 24 juillet 2010 - 01:07 .

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
"...and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil."

Wait, I'm confused, are you trying to say that particular quote has anything to do with temperature?

smudboy wrote...
And the math for this is where?  What's the terminal velocity?  What was the explosive velocity?  My calculations were based on Mars conditions.

From what I've seen, your math is based entirely around the idea that Shepard would be carried at explosive force, while the video contradicts this by having the blast propell Shepard into a piece of the Normandy, stop and then slowly saunter off into space, only picking up speed with gravity.

Someone earlier in this thread threw out Mach 2.5 as a guesstimated velocity upon contact with the atmosphere - seeing the visuals suggests a - relatively - slow descent, I'd say that sounds more accurate than the numbers you've been suggested.

(edit: messed up the quote tags..)

Modifié par Nhani, 24 juillet 2010 - 01:26 .

[Il Divo]

Nhani, this may seem entirely off-topic, but I must say the Legacy of Kain reference in your signature is pretty awesome.

[smudboy]

Nhani wrote...

smudboy wrote...
"...and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil."

Wait, I'm confused, are you trying to say that particular quote has anything to do with temperature?

Oh, you're right. It doesn't.

smudboy wrote...
And the math for this is where?  What's the terminal velocity?  What was the explosive velocity?  My calculations were based on Mars conditions.

From what I've seen, your math is based entirely around the idea that Shepard would be carried at explosive force, while the video contradicts this by having the blast propell Shepard into a piece of the Normandy, stop and then slowly saunter off into space, only picking up speed with gravity.

Someone earlier in this thread threw out Mach 2.5 as a guesstimated velocity upon contact with the atmosphere - seeing the visuals suggests a - relatively - slow descent, I'd say that sounds more accurate than the numbers you've been suggested.

(edit: messed up the quote tags..)

I didn't see Shepard stopping on a piece of the Normandy in space after the explosion.  They're just wriggling around.

Mach 2.5 does seem more believable (what is that, like 800 mph?) if Shepard's body is plumeting to the planet.

[Kroesis-]

I saw him hit a bulkhead which slowed his velocity.

Also;
Mach 1 = 761.207051 Miles Per Hour
Mach 2 = 1,522.4141 Miles Per Hour
Mach 3 = 2,283.62115 Miles Per Hour
Mach 4 = 3,044.8282 Miles Per Hour

Modifié par Kroesis-, 24 juillet 2010 - 02:10 .

[Christmas Ape]

Mach 2.5 does seem more believable (what is that, like 800 mph?)

Closer to 1500.

[wulf3n]

Christmas Ape wrote...
Closer to 1500.

u sure about that?

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
I didn't see Shepard stopping on a piece of the Normandy in space after the explosion.  They're just wriggling around.

Mach 2.5 does seem more believable (what is that, like 800 mph?) if Shepard's body is plumeting to the planet.

Hm.. suppose it depends on which explosion you're thinking of - the initial explosion that separates Shepard from the wreckage hits, Shepard falls back, hits a piece of wreckage, then slowly spins out into space, then the main wreckage itself explodes. When next we get a closeup, we see the nose of the Normandy effectively speed by, so I think it'd be possible Shepard was already clear of the worst of that blast. Either way, the video itself seemed to imply Shepard was moving relatively slowly, so there'd be far less friction with the atmosphere to slow down to terminal velocity.

It's going to be a stretch no matter how you twist if, of course, but it never struck me as quite that unbelievable - not in a setting already throwing around concepts like Element Zero and Mass Effect fields and the like. Especially since how the impression I got was that the whole circumstance leading up to Shepards ressurection was very much one of those one-in-a-million sort of things. I think the whole "impossible!" vibe is actually part carried by BioWares apparent intention of making it seem almost impossible - that it's essentially something that haven't succeeded before and isn't likely to do so again.

I can definitely see how it strains the credibility budget beyond the breaking point for some, but for me it never did.

Il Divo wrote...
Nhani, this may seem entirely off-topic, but I must say the Legacy of Kain reference in your signature is pretty awesome.

Ahem. Well.. what can I say? It's one of my favourite series of games. Heck, seeing it sounded like Simon Templeman voiced Rael'zorah too (and not just Han'gerrel), I'm surprised noone tried to photoshop in Raziels face on Tali..

..I didn't just give someone a horrible idea to try that now, did I..?

[Kroesis-]

wulf3n wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...
Closer to 1500.

u sure about that?

Pretty close if you're using data about Earths atmosphere. Technically there is no Mach in space as it relates to the speed of sound.

[Il Divo]

Nhani wrote...
Ahem. Well.. what can I say? It's one of my favourite series of games. Heck, seeing it sounded like Simon Templeman voiced Rael'zorah too (and not just Han'gerrel), I'm surprised noone tried to photoshop in Raziels face on Tali..

..I didn't just give someone a horrible idea to try that now, did I..?

Agreed. Brilliant series and brilliant voice-acting. I can't believe they just let it go.

And I'm sure someone somewhere has already photo-shopped a Shepard-Raziel pic. This is the internet after all.

[Nhani]

Il Divo wrote...
Agreed. Brilliant series and brilliant voice-acting. I can't believe they just let it go.

I think the audience might've been a tad limited for Edios tastes, it's not the kind of experience everyone clamors for. Besides, i think Amy Henning (lead producer for much of the series) left Crystal Dynamics after Defiance, and Tony Jay is even dead now, so even if they were to revive it, I think it'd be rather different.

All that said, I still hold Defiance (and to a lesser extent, Soul Reaver 2) up as the number one example of both voice acting, lip synching and character emoting and expression in games, even beating vastly technologically superior titles like Mass Effect 2. That doesn't mean Mass Effect 2 does any of those badly, it just means that Defiance utterly blew my mind in terms of letting characters speak, emote, express and act. 

But yeah, I digress.

[Raxxman]

[quote]smudboy wrote...



[quote]Raxxman wrote...

1. You don't bleed off heat rapidly in space, because all heat loss has to be via radiation, not conduction or convection.

[/quote]

"...and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil."

[/quote]



Already been covered, that page basically states that he wont freeze anyhow.





[quote]

2. Shepard doesn't reach thousands of mph before he hit the planet, this has already been established by a Bioware employee.

[/quote]

And the math for this is where? What's the terminal velocity? What was the explosive velocity? My calculations were based on Mars conditions.

[/quote]



Also already covered.



[quote]

3. Seeing as we see an aurora borealis effect on the planet (northen lights) we can conclude it does indeed have a magentosphere, as such an effect requires one.

[/quote]

Then Shepard's dust.

[/quote]



Just not true.



[quote]

4. Did it ever occur to you that Legion might of placed the helmet at the site of the crash? He has a peice of Shepards chest armour, he was clearly at the crash site before Shepard returned he might of collected the helmet, reached the crash site, and for whatever reason discarded it. I mean really, their are multiple possible explinations, and the compactness of the crash site itself is unrealistic anyhow. Maybe Bioware condensed the whole area so you didn't have to walk 20 odd miles between dogtags?

[/quote]

Actually I never thought of that, probably because that's kind of stupid. Legion could've done lots of things down there, too. As could've the Blue Suns. Hell, they could've hid all those dog tags in perfectly unbroken crates.

[/quote]



Right, so something that's plausible, but nails your argument to a wall should be completely dismissed due to the fact that it nails your argument.



[quote]

5. You're taking the description of a jarhead as absolute gospel? You don't understand how seeing shocking disformations can effect your memory, people who see relatives in intensive care often describe them as 'wires and tubes' in reference to the monitoring equipment and drips are so unlike what they usually see that that's all they remember. I'm sure if Mordin was around he'd of given you a significantly more scientific rundown.

[/quote]

A jarhead? You mean Jacob?



Okay, so now I'm questioning the validity of the narrative because Jacob is a jarhead. Great. Now I'm even more confused.



Yeah well Mordin wasn't around, so I have to work with what I'm given.

[/quote]



Jarhead = slang term for marine.



And you're falling into the trap of not viewing his description for what it is. Jacob isn't a scientist, I bet his biology training stopped at higher education tops. If he was to give an accurate medical account of your arrival situation it would be massively out of character. I'm not questioning the validity of him saying meat and tubes, I just wouldn't take it any further than it's the characters incredibly basic and superficial opinion of the situation and not the actual situation itself. It's like Jack saying 'Waaah Cerberus is evil!' and Miranda saying 'Naaaaw Cerberus is good.' both are character opinions.





[quote]

[quote]

Now if you didn't have your brain kick in, that's fine. The reason why it had to kick in is because the narrative didn't show us the effects of free fall onto a planet, so naturally we have to do some basic deduction.

[/quote]



{smilie}

[/quote]

What don't you get? We see Shepard hurtling toward a planet after being blasted away by an explosion. The fact that scene fades to black leads us to believe something happened to Shepard. Like, hurtling toward a planet.



[/quote]



If I can absolutely discredit your first statement within seconds, why should I believe the rest of your argument? When something you have passed as impossible is explained in a way you haven't expected you immediately dismiss it like a Turian Councilor, and we all know what a bell end he is.

[smudboy]

Raxxman wrote...
Already been covered, that page basically states that he wont freeze anyhow.

There's little mention of temperature, but the fact that within seconds the dude's moisture started boiling says a lot.

2. Shepard doesn't reach thousands of mph before he hit the planet, this has already been established by a Bioware employee.

And the math for this is where? What's the terminal velocity? What was the explosive velocity? My calculations were based on Mars conditions.

Also already covered.

And the conclusion was what?  What did you cover?

Then Shepard's dust.

Just not true.

Okay.  So explain to me how it works then, or how it's "just not true".

Actually I never thought of that, probably because that's kind of stupid. Legion could've done lots of things down there, too. As could've the Blue Suns. Hell, they could've hid all those dog tags in perfectly unbroken crates.

Right, so something that's plausible, but nails your argument to a wall should be completely dismissed due to the fact that it nails your argument.

No, because it's random speculation.  Whereas I don't personally care what happens to the helmet, but if you're saying from above that Shepard didn't burn up in the atmosphere, even though there is a magnetosphere, and he's supposedly travelling at roughly 2.5 machs, which is 1650 mph, then hit helmet would be in tiny little pieces.

Jarhead = slang term for marine.

And you're falling into the trap of not viewing his description for what it is. Jacob isn't a scientist, I bet his biology training stopped at higher education tops. If he was to give an accurate medical account of your arrival situation it would be massively out of character. I'm not questioning the validity of him saying meat and tubes, I just wouldn't take it any further than it's the characters incredibly basic and superficial opinion of the situation and not the actual situation itself. It's like Jack saying 'Waaah Cerberus is evil!' and Miranda saying 'Naaaaw Cerberus is good.' both are character opinions.

An opinion is not an observation.

If someone sees meat and tubes, that's pretty clear to me.  Not exactly what kind of meat and tubes, however.  Could be tubes like veins or arteries.

What don't you get? We see Shepard hurtling toward a planet after being blasted away by an explosion. The fact that scene fades to black leads us to believe something happened to Shepard. Like, hurtling toward a planet.

If I can absolutely discredit your first statement within seconds, why should I believe the rest of your argument? When something you have passed as impossible is explained in a way you haven't expected you immediately dismiss it like a Turian Councilor, and we all know what a bell end he is.

Then explain it if you understand it so well: enlighten me.  Why hold back? Completely destroy my reasoning and argument and give me the correct answer.

Or do you not have it?  What are you scared of?

Modifié par smudboy, 24 juillet 2010 - 03:26 .

[SpiderFan1217]

Is this thread still going? Your not getting a retcon. It's unneccasary.

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
(...)and he's supposedly travelling at roughly 2.5 machs, which is 1650 mph, then hit helmet would be in tiny little pieces.

Aactually. Small aside there - I even went and tried to wrap my head around that calculator you linked to and everything. As far as I understood it, an aproximated Mach 2.5 was the velocity with which Shepard would hit the atmosphere - contact with ground would - in my understanding - be significantly slower. I actually tried to put the numbers provided by the Mass Effect wiki for the planet in question into the calculation for terminal velocity, and it spat out an aproximated 1.1% increase in terminal velocity compared to what it would be on Earth, with the lower gravity (0.85) and lower air density (0.83) almost nullifying eachother.

Mind you, this is all in relative numbers, so I'm well aware I might've made a critical error somewhere, but according to the formula you provided, in theory Shepard shouldn't have hit the surface much faster than he/she would have doing an unconcious freefall on earth. Still is a significant amount of force, of course, and would likely not leave the helmet in very good condition (especially since the ground didn't really seem all that soft..).

SpiderFan1217 wrote...
Is this thread still going? Your not getting a retcon. It's unneccasary.

No, but I think we're just having fun sharpening our proverbial argumental claws, as it were, at this point.

[atheelogos]

All this talk and confusion just proves one thing. Bioware needs a science adviser.

[smudboy]

Nhani wrote...

Aactually. Small aside there - I even went and tried to wrap my head around that calculator you linked to and everything. As far as I understood it, an aproximated Mach 2.5 was the velocity with which Shepard would hit the atmosphere - contact with ground would - in my understanding - be significantly slower. I actually tried to put the numbers provided by the Mass Effect wiki for the planet in question into the calculation for terminal velocity, and it spat out an aproximated 1.1% increase in terminal velocity compared to what it would be on Earth, with the lower gravity (0.85) and lower air density (0.83) almost nullifying eachother.

Mind you, this is all in relative numbers, so I'm well aware I might've made a critical error somewhere, but according to the formula you provided, in theory Shepard shouldn't have hit the surface much faster than he/she would have doing an unconcious freefall on earth. Still is a significant amount of force, of course, and would likely not leave the helmet in very good condition (especially since the ground didn't really seem all that soft..).

I think it's safe to say he was moving something over 1000 mph, to induce being pulverized on impact, if there was no atmosphere.