931 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

And let's not think of the wonderful effects of an ammonia and methane atmosphere on a corpse...

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
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.

smudboy wrote...
And let's not think of the wonderful effects of an ammonia and methane atmosphere on a corpse...

Uh.. doesn't those two statements contradict eachother? Or in the least, the latter invalidate the former. Either way, source claims the atmosphere at "dense", implying it being 83% the density of that of the earth, and the formula you linked seems to imply that terminal velocity wouldn't go much farther than it would in Earth's atmosphere.

While I'll give as much that it is a stretch, I maintain it's not quite as far a one as you seem determined to make it sound.

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

Actually, I disagree. You'd have to cut out a majority of everything established so far if you'd want to enslave Mass Effect some idea of "realism".

[smudboy]

Nhani wrote...

smudboy wrote...
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.

smudboy wrote...
And let's not think of the wonderful effects of an ammonia and methane atmosphere on a corpse...

Uh.. doesn't those two statements contradict eachother? Or in the least, the latter invalidate the former. Either way, source claims the atmosphere at "dense", implying it being 83% the density of that of the earth, and the formula you linked seems to imply that terminal velocity wouldn't go much farther than it would in Earth's atmosphere.

While I'll give as much that it is a stretch, I maintain it's not quite as far a one as you seem determined to make it sound.

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

Actually, I disagree. You'd have to cut out a majority of everything established so far if you'd want to enslave Mass Effect some idea of "realism".

Sorry, no magnetosphere.

[Commander Maklai]

It could be that the point of this topic is pesemistic and the thread statrter needs to lighten up a little, its impossible to know unless it all does come true(i'm hoping it does eve though its incredibly unlikely) After all, this is a fantasy game, what is the point of a thread like this?

[RiouHotaru]

Smud, does the fact we had a Bioware employee tell us flat up even register? Why are you arguing about the speed at which Shepard's body came in at, or the effects of the planet's atmosphere, when we have Word Of God telling us "Yes, Shepard hit the surface of the planet at high speeds, his/her body was recovered later by the Blue Suns."  The actual physical numbers are totally irrelevant.

Because if this is like the argument over the asari I will just facedesk until my desk cracks. I find it downright embarassing that we argue against the word of the people who made of them as though somehow we know better than they do.

Also, Nhani gives a very good explanation for why a lot of us held our suspension of disbelief. You may be late to the party, Nhani, but a fresh face is always welcome, please stick around!

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 24 juillet 2010 - 07:06 .

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...
Smud, does the fact we had a Bioware employee tell us flat up even register? Why are you arguing about the speed at which Shepard's body came in at, or the effects of the planet's atmosphere, when we have Word Of God telling us "Yes, Shepard hit the surface of the planet at high speeds, his/her body was recovered later by the Blue Suns."  The actual physical numbers are totally irrelevant.

Because the Word of God is after the fact, and it doesn't make sense, and we thus have to figure that out?

Just because someone tells you, doesn't mean it's correct to what you saw.  The narrative has to be twisted, bent or downright forgotten at points to match that fact.  Word of God may have wanted that to happen and be shown/described in the cutscene, but it certainly wasn't displayed as clearly as he/she'd like.  (Hell, I don't even know how Joker made it to the escape pod after 20 seconds in space.)

1. Shepard gets exploded away by some explosion, right after the escape pod doors close.  We then see the rest of the Normandy get shot up, big explosion, fade to.  (We don't speculate how this explosion would've propelled Shepard at all, because we can't see it's effects relative to Shepard.)
2. The camera then does this frantic zoom in of Shepard looking around, and then wriggling around while the air exists their suit.  We see the silhouette of the bottom of the planet relative to the screen.  It certainly looks like they're standing, but we don't see anything beneath them. We then see their arms and feet flailing, so I have to believe they were still traveling at explosive speeds (roughly 1800-10300m/s.  Let's pick the lowest: 1800 m/s = 4026.48533 mph).
3. Let's assume there's no magnetosphere.

So Shepard's traveling at at least 4026.5 mph due to explosive speed, unless there's something special/weaker about that particular explosion.  To guesstimate, I just say several 1000s mph.  If Shepard's not traveling at that speed, what the heck did they hit to bring them to a complete stop from that speed, and then start freefall to the planet (8.33m/s^2) and how are they still able to move around?

Because if this is like the argument over the asari I will just facedesk until my desk cracks. I find it downright embarassing that we argue against the word of the people who made of them as though somehow we know better than they do.

What argument?

Also, Nhani gives a very good explanation for why a lot of us held our suspension of disbelief. You may be late to the party, Nhani, but a fresh face is always welcome, please stick around!

Nhani comments didn't do jack squat to help a suspension of disbelief.  What are you talking about?

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
2. The camera then does this frantic zoom in of Shepard looking around, and then wriggling around while the air exists their suit.  We see the silhouette of the bottom of the planet relative to the screen.  It certainly looks like they're standing, but we don't see anything beneath them. We then see their arms and feet flailing, so I have to believe they were still traveling at explosive speeds (roughly 1800-10300m/s.  Let's pick the lowest: 1800 m/s = 4026.48533 mph).

In the end though, this is all nothing but guesstimates; we have a visualized explosion in a zero atmosphere region of a vessel and a character that - depending on how you interpret the prior series of visuals - may or may not have drifted clear. We also see that the nose (an object of much higher mass) of the vessel travels significantly faster than Shepard is falling - that's effectively all we know.

You have nothing but baseless conjecture for your assumed velocity. Of course, there's nothing but baseless conjecture (plus Word of God) to stand against it either, but it's not really something either of us can hang a solid argument on at this point.

Of course, to compound the problem, any visual evidence could also easilly be blamed on creative license by a cinematic team, operating seperately from the writers (which, of course, I'm not entirely sure they do, but it seems typical of compartmentualization.)

[Kroesis-]

We see Shepard hit a bulkhead which drastically slows his velocity. That's what we see. What we see next is the Normandy exploding, but we don't see Shepard. Then we cut back to Shepard flailing about with his Helmet where the gasses are being expelled (but leaving very little in the way of a trail as I presume that they might at higher speeds - although I'm not too sure of this point, considering that the gasses wouldn't be affected by anything tbh.). We do not see his velocity speed up at any point between his collision with the bulkhead to when he's flailing about.

Modifié par Kroesis-, 24 juillet 2010 - 08:54 .

[smudboy]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

smudboy wrote...

And let's not think of the wonderful effects of an ammonia and methane atmosphere on a corpse...

What are the effects?

It's a corrosive, so, it eats away at metal.  Organic material, no problem.

http://www.ccohs.ca/...th_ammonia.html
http://emedicine.med...820298-overview

I can't say for sure, but Shepard wouldn't have any...organic material left.  The issue is the concentration in the air, and the time to reaction.  Since the atmosphere is completely methane and ammonia, we can assume it's something like half and half, so 500,000 ppm gaseous ammonia.

In general:
"25-50 ppm - Detectable odor; unlikely to experience adverse effects
50-100 ppm - Mild eye, nose, and throat irritation; may develop tolerance in 1-2 weeks with no adverse effects thereafter
140 ppm - Moderate eye irritation; no long-term sequelae in exposures of less than 2 hours
400 ppm - Moderate throat irritation
500 ppm - IDLH
700 ppm - Immediate eye injury
1000 ppm - Directly caustic to airway
1700 ppm - Laryngospasm
2500 ppm - Fatality (after half-hour exposure)
2500-6500 ppm - Sloughing and necrosis of airway mucosa, chest pain, acute lung injury (ALI), and bronchospasm
5000 ppm - Rapidly fatal exposure"

For skin:
"At 10000 ppm, ammonia (gaseous) is mildly irritating to moist skin. At 20000 ppm, the effects are more pronounced and 30000 ppm may produce chemical burns with blistering."

I mean there's way more to read, but I just pulled what I could.  Even if it's at 100,000 ppm, Shepard's organic material goes byebye.

And this is all assuming the body/armor/whatever is somehow actually in tact after being pulverized.

[RiouHotaru]

smudboy wrote...

Because the Word of God is after the fact, and it doesn't make sense, and we thus have to figure that out?

Just because someone tells you, doesn't mean it's correct to what you saw.  The narrative has to be twisted, bent or downright forgotten at points to match that fact.  Word of God may have wanted that to happen and be shown/described in the cutscene, but it certainly wasn't displayed as clearly as he/she'd like.  (Hell, I don't even know how Joker made it to the escape pod after 20 seconds in space.)

1. Shepard gets exploded away by some explosion, right after the escape pod doors close.  We then see the rest of the Normandy get shot up, big explosion, fade to.  (We don't speculate how this explosion would've propelled Shepard at all, because we can't see it's effects relative to Shepard.)
2. The camera then does this frantic zoom in of Shepard looking around, and then wriggling around while the air exists their suit.  We see the silhouette of the bottom of the planet relative to the screen.  It certainly looks like they're standing, but we don't see anything beneath them. We then see their arms and feet flailing, so I have to believe they were still traveling at explosive speeds (roughly 1800-10300m/s.  Let's pick the lowest: 1800 m/s = 4026.48533 mph).
3. Let's assume there's no magnetosphere.

So Shepard's traveling at at least 4026.5 mph due to explosive speed, unless there's something special/weaker about that particular explosion.  To guesstimate, I just say several 1000s mph.  If Shepard's not traveling at that speed, what the heck did they hit to bring them to a complete stop from that speed, and then start freefall to the planet (8.33m/s^2) and how are they still able to move around?

What I don't get is why you demand that the cutscene and the explanation absolutely must match up with actual numbers and science in order to be believeable to you.  I mean, perhaps it's the fact that you can do the math and know the numbers that causes you to argue that the writers and cutscene designers are doing it wrong, but..well, I'll let Nhandi say it:

Nhani wrote...

In the end though, this is all nothing but guesstimates; we have a visualized explosion in a zero atmosphere region of a vessel and a character that - depending on how you interpret the prior series of visuals - may or may not have drifted clear. We also see that the nose (an object of much higher mass) of the vessel travels significantly faster than Shepard is falling - that's effectively all we know.

You have nothing but baseless conjecture for your assumed velocity. Of course, there's nothing but baseless conjecture (plus Word of God) to stand against it either, but it's not really something either of us can hang a solid argument on at this point.

Of course, to compound the problem, any visual evidence could also easilly be blamed on creative license by a cinematic team, operating seperately from the writers (which, of course, I'm not entirely sure they do, but it seems typical of compartmentualization.)

Basically, at best all the numbers being tossed around are best guesses (not even educated ones!) because the only thing we have to go on is a beautifully crafted cutscene showing an explosion which may or may not be accurate to what actually occurs in real life when you have such explosions.  You like to go on about my blind acceptance and the fact I'm just swallowing whatever Bioware gives me but did you consider even for the moment that they're right?

Also, whether the Word Of God comes after the fact or not doesn't make it less relevant.  Someone who worked on the game closely has told us specifically what happened, and the game doesn't do anything to challenge his statement.  You're the only one challenging his statement at this point.

What argument?

Basically, a while back some gamers were insisting that Liara/FemShep constitutes a F/F relationship.  Casey Hudson, during an interview in which this issue came up, stated that no, Liara doesn't count as female, it's not a lesbian relationship.  Cue epic Internet Backlash stating Bioware was "kidding themselves" and "weren't fooling anyone."  It's this rather hilarious stance that somehow we know more about what their creation than they do.


As for Nhani's statement regarding suspension of disbelief...

Nhani wrote...
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.

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.

[Omicrone]

You must be pretty bad at chemistry, smudboy. At -22 Celsius, which is the temperature of the planet, any sort of chemical reaction involving ammonia wouldn't proceed at much higher speed than water eroding a rock. Better get your "facts" straight before you talk about corosion and things. LOL

[smudboy]

RiouHotaru wrote...
What I don't get is why you demand that the cutscene and the explanation absolutely must match up with actual numbers and science in order to be believeable to you.  I mean, perhaps it's the fact that you can do the math and know the numbers that causes you to argue that the writers and cutscene designers are doing it wrong, but..well, I'll let Nhandi say it:

Because my suspension is gone.  I need to wrap my head around this whole fiasco, and science would definitely help with that.  I need to go "oh okay, because of physics or chemistry, it's possible."  Meaning, the animator was intelligent enough to think up how to make this thing appear to be believable, incase his skills in showing us what needed to be seen failed.

It doesn't really matter what a creator, BioWare exec, etc. says about that scene.  If the scene is not clear enough to show and tell what it's meant to, like, how Shepard died, then it fails.  (This is not some modern or abstract art where we need an interpreter.)  Esepcailly since they're bringing Shepard back from the dead 5 minutes later.  Where suddenly physics and chemistry play integral roles, yet, we've nothing to point to, grab onto, or go "oh that's how they survived, oh that's how they were suspended, oh that's how they were brought back."  It could be ANYTHING.  A MacGuffin, the Scabbard of Excalibur, Wolverine's healing ability, a new gadget in medical sci-fi, something.  Hell we've got two doctors on board, the director of the entire project, and no mention of anything.

Basically, at best all the numbers being tossed around are best guesses (not even educated ones!) because the only thing we have to go on is a beautifully crafted cutscene showing an explosion which may or may not be accurate to what actually occurs in real life when you have such explosions.  You like to go on about my blind acceptance and the fact I'm just swallowing whatever Bioware gives me but did you consider even for the moment that they're right?

That's what I do.  I first feign intelligence and accept everything before me.  Then I look at it, and go "hmm, wait a second...why did that not make sense?"  I think I know what they were trying to show and tell me.  But it failed.

Basically, a while back some gamers were insisting that Liara/FemShep constitutes a F/F relationship.  Casey Hudson, during an interview in which this issue came up, stated that no, Liara doesn't count as female, it's not a lesbian relationship.  Cue epic Internet Backlash stating Bioware was "kidding themselves" and "weren't fooling anyone."  It's this rather hilarious stance that somehow we know more about what their creation than they do.

Ah, that's, curious.

Nhani wrote...

They're saying "A=A".  This changes nothing.  Yes, I saw the operation cutscene, disposable scalpels cutting something, magical blue fluid, the weird glowing clamps.  Okay?  It helps, but not much.

Now if Mordin was involved, and he spouted a whole bunch of made up chemicals or pharamaceuticals, cybernetic lingo, that would help. That'd be the Unobtainium right there.  I might just be on board.  The audio logs were more damaging than useful.  Next would be the account for Shepard's impact crater/mention of a lack of burning up in the atmosphere, the story of how the merc's found the body, and how it was preserved.  Especially the brain.  Especially since Shepard's helmet was somehow removed and barely damaged, and the body not turned to dust and exposed to gaseous methane and ammonia. 

Actaully, if the brain was preserved and merely oxygen deprived, I might buy that, but then they'd have to explain how they regenerated/repaired the brain.  Again, easy in storytelling/sci-fi land.

If Resurrection is the idea, and you're going to give us extravagant scene of destruction, you're going to need an equally clear extravagant scene of rebuilding.  You can't have it one way.  (Better yet tie it into the narrative: what did they really do to Shepard?  It could be a subplot + actual character development.)

[smudboy]

Omicrone wrote...

You must be pretty bad at chemistry, smudboy. At -22 Celsius, which is the temperature of the planet, any sort of chemical reaction involving ammonia wouldn't proceed at much higher speed than water eroding a rock. Better get your "facts" straight before you talk about corosion and things. LOL

Could you explain then how gaseous ammonia would react?

[Kroesis-]

Imagination is a wonderful thing....

[Nhani]

smudboy wrote...
They're saying "A=A".  This changes nothing.  Yes, I saw the operation cutscene, disposable scalpels cutting something, magical blue fluid, the weird glowing clamps.  Okay?  It helps, but not much.

Now if Mordin was involved, and he spouted a whole bunch of made up chemicals or pharamaceuticals, cybernetic lingo, that would help. That'd be the Unobtainium right there.  I might just be on board.  The audio logs were more damaging than useful.  Next would be the account for Shepard's impact crater/mention of a lack of burning up in the atmosphere, the story of how the merc's found the body, and how it was preserved.  Especially the brain.  Especially since Shepard's helmet was somehow removed and barely damaged, and the body not turned to dust and exposed to gaseous methane and ammonia. 

Actaully, if the brain was preserved and merely oxygen deprived, I might buy that, but then they'd have to explain how they regenerated/repaired the brain.  Again, easy in storytelling/sci-fi land.

If Resurrection is the idea, and you're going to give us extravagant scene of destruction, you're going to need an equally clear extravagant scene of rebuilding.  You can't have it one way.  (Better yet tie it into the narrative: what did they really do to Shepard?  It could be a subplot + actual character development.)

Okay, this much I can buy - I won't necessarily agree with it, to a point for me I think leaving it implied rather than explained via technobabble lets me just absorb the results and string together my own reasoning rather than being given one that I find unsatisfactory and ultimately reject. The same way, I found reading the secondary codex entries actually ended up being somewhat determinental to my experience due to all the small details that are either nonsensical or contradictive, but hey. We're all different in terms of immersion.

Like said much earlier, I approach Mass Effect far more like Fantasy than Sci-Fi due to the narrative style and design, so that might be the critical difference. I'm often wary when things must be explained too much because the explaination rarely makes enough sense.

In the end, I'd say if it's a fail, it's far more a narrative one than a scientiffic one, because the fault isn't the science, but how events are portrayed in narrative. Ultimately, whether it was or not depends largely on whether "enough people" could acknowledge it enough not to have it break their experience.

As an aside, I got the impression they'd planned to do more regarding Shepards death at first, but it was axed for whatever reason? That said, that's more based on rumors and hearsay than anything, so I can't exactly adequately judge whether there's anything into that, or whether it would've helped in your case.

[Highdragonslayer]

Science fiction



Need I say more?

[Kroesis-]

Nhani wrote...
Okay, this much I can buy - I won't necessarily agree with it, to a point for me I think leaving it implied rather than explained via technobabble lets me just absorb the results and string together my own reasoning rather than being given one that I find unsatisfactory and ultimately reject. The same way, I found reading the secondary codex entries actually ended up being somewhat determinental to my experience due to all the small details that are either nonsensical or contradictive, but hey. We're all different in terms of immersion.

Like said much earlier, I approach Mass Effect far more like Fantasy than Sci-Fi due to the narrative style and design, so that might be the critical difference. I'm often wary when things must be explained too much because the explaination rarely makes enough sense.

In the end, I'd say if it's a fail, it's far more a narrative one than a scientiffic one, because the fault isn't the science, but how events are portrayed in narrative. Ultimately, whether it was or not depends largely on whether "enough people" could acknowledge it enough not to have it break their experience.

As an aside, I got the impression they'd planned to do more regarding Shepards death at first, but it was axed for whatever reason? That said, that's more based on rumors and hearsay than anything, so I can't exactly adequately judge whether there's anything into that, or whether it would've helped in your case.

Everyone's different but this is pretty much how I rationalise the whole thing. At least then noone has to 'reverse the polarity' of somesuch thing...

[Omicrone]

smudboy wrote...

Omicrone wrote...

You must be pretty bad at chemistry, smudboy. At -22 Celsius, which is the temperature of the planet, any sort of chemical reaction involving ammonia wouldn't proceed at much higher speed than water eroding a rock. Better get your "facts" straight before you talk about corosion and things. LOL

Could you explain then how gaseous ammonia would react?

It wouldn't. 80% of human body is water. At -22 C Shepard's body will freeze first before any reaction occurs to eat away at his skin. And frost will definitely prevent further decomposition by ammonia or anything else. His skin might be lightly damaged by the ammonia but at a temperature 10 degrees higher than melting point, ammonia isn't very reactive with anything other than metal. So yeah your ammonia argument fails.

[SpectreSeven]

Ksandor wrote...

You can't bring Shepard back from dead -- it is impossible.

If you are brain dead your neurons and neural pathways and protein based memory molecules decompose. Since nobody knows what protein based memories and neural pathways Shepard had in life reconstructing them is impossible (you can't reconstruct memories and the personality).

Besides quantum mechanics says 100% reproduction is impossible. Especially when it comes to a complex system like a thinking brain. Unless there was some sort of hibernation mechanism in Shepard's suit reviving a brain dead person is impossible.

If I were Bioware I would create circumstances where Shepard's brain could be salvaged more or less intact. At least they did not clearly state that Shepard fell to the planet. No "body" can survive that. Simple impact would pulverize the body even if the atmosphere does not contain oxygen so the body would not burn. Maybe Shepard's body was in orbit and his body suit's emergency systems preserved him to some degree. Any specifics about this in Redemption comic?

The solution would be to imply that Shepard's body recovered from orbit and the suit protected him from extreme decomposition -- especially an emergency mechanism which protected his brain. This would not directly conflict with Jacob when he said Shepard was dead as dead can be and Miranda when he summarizes the extensive damage Shepard suffered. If your brain is preserved bringing you back from dead should be possible with future tech.

I wish they just said that Shepard was in comma for 2 years. That was the most plausible solution but Bioware wanted to scandalize audience with this flashy death idea so instead they have chosen this Hollywood no brainer. They should retcon this without conflicting Mass Effect 2.

Can't restore some goddamn memories you say?

Firstly, it's the future.

Secondly, have a read of the Graybox Codex Entry from the Kasumi DLC

Thirdly,

[Zulu_DFA]

Nhani wrote...

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.

This was not so in ME1. In ME2, yes. ME1 was science fiction, and ME2 is a space fantasy. But what's with the ME universe? Is it a science fiction universe or a fantasy universe? Well, ME1 was here first, so all this "space fantasy" thing is actually an euphemism for someone's laziness.

But BioWare owns the franchise, so, sadly, no one can prevent a them from completing a Ret Con on the scale of genre. I wonder, how may people would like a "it was all just a dream" ending for ME3? And it would be a less of an ass-pull, than what they are doing by turning biotics into magic.

Nhani wrote...

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.

There is no such thing as "Science Fantasy". George Lucas calls Star Wars "Space Fantasy", and for good reason.

And Star Wars begins like "In a galaxy far far away...", whereas Mass Effect begins like "In 2148, explorers on Mars...". So, yeah...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Smud, does the fact we had a Bioware employee tell us flat up even register? Why are you arguing about the speed at which Shepard's body came in at, or the effects of the planet's atmosphere, when we have Word Of God telling us "Yes, Shepard hit the surface of the planet at high speeds, his/her body was recovered later by the Blue Suns."  The actual physical numbers are totally irrelevant.

Only the Employee never said anything like this.

The Employee said, that if Shepard entered the planet's atmosphere, he wouldn't burn. It was also said in the context of the sub-argument that Shepard would burn in the atmospehere to ashes and therefore he was retrieved in orbit. So it seems to have been meant to rule out the notion that Shepard's body was recovered from orbit.

However, the Employee did not say anything about how, at what velocity, and in how much time after the attack Shepard hit the planet.

The argument is here about the absolute impossibility of Shepard's recovery after the information-theoretic death which would ensue in a matter of hours (in not minutes) unless Shepard had access to some life support (and, for that matter, deceleration) equipment after the screen faded to black in the intro cutscene.

Saying overwise is like saying that you can multiply a given quantity (Shepard) by zero, and then multiply the result by some Lazarus number, to regain the initial quantity. That's impossible.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 25 juillet 2010 - 03:54 .

[smudboy]

Nhani wrote...
Okay, this much I can buy - I won't necessarily agree with it, to a point for me I think leaving it implied rather than explained via technobabble lets me just absorb the results and string together my own reasoning rather than being given one that I find unsatisfactory and ultimately reject. The same way, I found reading the secondary codex entries actually ended up being somewhat determinental to my experience due to all the small details that are either nonsensical or contradictive, but hey. We're all different in terms of immersion.

What part was implied?  The death, storage, or resurrection, or all of it?  What in those parts were implied?  Because that's a hell of a lot of imagination we'll be needing to go "oh, okay...now I know how that all works..."  Far as I can tell, the whole goddamned mess implies "Shut up and play the damn tutorial level."

Like said much earlier, I approach Mass Effect far more like Fantasy than Sci-Fi due to the narrative style and design, so that might be the critical difference. I'm often wary when things must be explained too much because the explaination rarely makes enough sense.

I don't see how a narrative style, or composition, implies genre.  Seriously, unless you have some example, I'm lost here.  Isn't ME supposed to be a space opera?  I certainly don't recall ME1 needing to explain too much.  Actually I wouldn't mind it beating me over the head, since space operas need to be simple.  Simple and clear?  Yes and please.

In the end, I'd say if it's a fail, it's far more a narrative one than a scientiffic one, because the fault isn't the science, but how events are portrayed in narrative. Ultimately, whether it was or not depends largely on whether "enough people" could acknowledge it enough not to have it break their experience.

Well, yes, every fault in the narrative is from the narrative.  The narrative could be science, storytelling, etc.  It's still a fault, it still raises questions, and it doesn't imply how things should be, it just tells you "okay you're Cyber Jesus."

As an aside, I got the impression they'd planned to do more regarding Shepards death at first, but it was axed for whatever reason? That said, that's more based on rumors and hearsay than anything, so I can't exactly adequately judge whether there's anything into that, or whether it would've helped in your case.

Yeah I thought it'd be a constant theme: figure out wtf happened to you, develop the Shepard persona/character as you do find out, the climax being where you drop or stay with Cerberus.  The Collector plot was obviously going fricking nowhere, so I was hoping for some kind of social conflict.

[crimzontearz]

uhm....I said it before, I will say it again..



Bioware ROYALLY screwed this up.



The original aim was an excuse to completely re-do the skill system in oder to make it compatible with ME3 and render the ME2-to-ME3 transition seamless and to fix some of the issues with the original class system in ME1.



so rather than just "poofing it" into a new system and just saying "look guys we realized the old class system and skills were flawed, we did not think too far ahead and now we have to change it" they decided to give an in game explanation to the change and the reset. This nearly NEVER works well (remember the ammo system? same deal).



stupidly (some say) Bioware decided to kill off Shepard only to have him resurrected immediately perhaps also to milk that "Shepard: KIA" trailer to the max before E3. Yes, it was foolish, it did not work but no one can change that and Bioware will never EVER own up to it or directly apologize for it...no company does



As I said remember the ending of Halo 2? people at Bungie still make interviews saying "oh yes people threw their ontrollers when they saw that ending....but not because they were pissed, it was simply because it was THAT awesome" and no I am not kidding you there actually is an interview like that.



yes, we all agree it is shady, it is a lazy way to accomplish justified gameplay changes and lock away important characters for ME3 and it requires for us to just shut off our brain in order to just go over it (just like the fact Shepard never really says F*** YOU to TIM even after having been through Akuze).



There is REALLY nothing we can do but to hope Bioware will not make the same mistakes again because no one from Bioware will EVER own up to it fully and extensively....



just saying

[Onyx Jaguar]

Halo 2's ending wasn't that bad since IT DIDN'T HAVE ONE

[Frank the Running Bugzepel]

Okay, we need order and a clear and plausible explanation on how Shepard was brought back to life. Lets start with a few facts first:

Ammonia melts at ~-78 C and water melts at 0 C (that's a no brainer). So ammonia wouldn't really hurt Shepard (unless he was breathing it). The burns that is sustained in his body would not necessary be from the friction sustained from the atmosphere but more as the result frost. From sustained exposure of the elements, Shepard would receive 3rd or 4th degree burns from frost (that's why frostbite looks similar to burns) thus the cold temperatures well persevered the body. The armor may have protected him from the friction exposure while in the atmosphere (lets say that it has advance nano-technological upgrades that prevent from burning at the beginning of the descent) but at impact or later as he reached terminal velocity further down the atmosphere chunks of his armor fell off and the rest is a pretty picture that we all can imagine (aka splat).

The real problem with the project (and hence all the 4 billion dollars spent) is how to bring someone back from brain dead. Assuming that the project figured somehow to turn on brain functionally by using stem cell or some other medical advancement in the future (lets call it advancement X) then the rest is supplementary. All the cybernetics that Shepard had received are like pacemakers we use today (to control and regulate electrical impulses from the brain), his skin or other lost organs would be made from stem cells to recreate the function or the use of an enzyme/protein that can recreated function. The blood was Shepard's to begin with but he would have need numerous transfusions by either having loss of kidney function or something else. His bones we see are badly fractured and two ways that they could rebuild his skeletal frame is by:

a) implants that we see today with titanium or

again stem cell (bones are alive and have feelings too ).

The main problem is again is restarting the brain. Let's say the helmet saved his head from massive damage and much of the neurone links that he made all the way to the point of death is intact. Currently neurobiologists are researching if you can turn back on brain function (such as speech, memory, movement) on stroke patents by studying their brain patterns and comparing those with normal people to see where the links have failed. These scientists are hoping with this information that it will leave one step closer to finding ways to help people who have lost their brain function. Returning to advancement X, we can then say that the project has finally found a way to restart brain function in a subject (aka Shepard) and that this advancement could help future patients in the long term (Cerberus' projects always have the habit of coming to the Alliance in the end). So is resurrecting a dead man impossible? In current form no, is it possible to bring someone back from the dead? That is for the future to decide. I'm no seer and I can't see how we advance in the next 200 years but one thing I do know that it will be different from now. So let us all (including me) forget about this and concentrate on the future.