931 réponses à ce sujet

[Reptilian Rob]

[jklinders]

crimzontearz wrote...

snip

I get it, it was lazy, it was a poor excuse and Bioware should know it but they will NEVER admitt it so....this is getting a little ridiculous is it not?

Also I understand that with no criticism there is no improvement.....but remember Bioware does not take it always that well

Only to those who will accept poor writing passively. If Bioware has trouble with the little bit of constructive criticism I have made in this topic then I should probably send them a bottle of Johnson and Johnson no more tears shampoo and an exhortion to grow up. Any professional person that does not try to improve on their mistakes deserves their eventual demise. What are they going to do? Ban me? For what? Saying that a a poorly written openening scene is poorly written?

To be clear I do not care at all about the Science. The science of the Mass Effrect is completely broken as it is. The problem I have is how bringing the dead back to life is completely out of line with the rest of the setting. And even that would be fine if the rest of the universe reacted as if it was as shocking as it would be.

We get none of that, and I can only conclude that one of 2 things happened.
1: The writing team ran out of time and decided to run with one of the biggest cliches in literature. But then had no     time to make it make sense.
or 2:Thety were too incompetent to come up with a way to force the whole Shepard Cerberus angle without it.

Take your pick, the writing around this sucked both ways. As a consumer, I see no harm in telling them that. I want them to do better after all.

[darkranger23]

Restoring a man back to perfect working order after his brain has frozen and died for an unknown period of time needs to be explained.  There was no explanation, thus, we don't believe it.  We're not disbelieving that it's impossible, it merely wasn't exaplined or shown as to how.  There are a large amount of ways to do this, and none were chosen.

This has to take into account 1) the extreme causes of their death, 2) an unknown preservation, 3) an unknown resurrection.  That's a lot of ground to cover.  But sci-fi and storytelling have quite a few methods of making crazy things happen like resurrection.  ME2 choose not to even bother.

My post was directed mostly towards the people that disregard his resurrection without thought.  The ones who say, "that's impossible."  Instead of, "how can you make me believe it's possible."

That said, I'm glad you posted.  You gave a thoughtful, intelligent reply, and I agree that it was clumsy storytelling.  But story was never my argument.  Bioware attempted to show  (which is a staple for good storytelling, but not always appropriate) instead of tell.  Something as complex as his mysterious resurrection deserved a side-mission of it's own, or at least some detailed exposition.  The opening cinematic that we got was rather vague.  More of a teaser for things-to-come than a proper explanation.

Your points are valid.  But I don't agree that no methods were chosen.  In fact, they covered all your points, they just did it poorly.  Bioware didn't clarify themselves, and that was the problem.  For instance, Shepard either died by hitting the planet, or floating in space, we know that, but which was it?  Bioware suggests Shepard hit the planet by adding a red glow growing around him as he neared it.

But to contradict themselves, Miranda later says he spent an excessive amount of time in a vacuum.  So either he died floating in space, or the planet had no atmosphere.  Unfortunately, we're led to believe the planet did have an atmosphere, and that he did fall toward it, because as he neared the planet, he glowed red.  Something caused by the friction of atmospheric entry.

Point two is either part of point one, or part of point three.  Either the way he died allowed his preservation, or Cerberus' preservation allowed his resurrection.  But again, too few details were given to draw any sort of conclusion.

So my point is, the concept wasn't the problem--anything can be handled in the realm of fiction--it was the execution.

Final comment.  I love to read and I love a good story, ME2, forgiving plot errors, has a great story.  It's character driven, as all great stories are.  And aside from some goofy dialogue, the characters stand out as living, breathing people that can be cared for.  That, to me, is a great story.

Modifié par darkranger23, 25 juillet 2010 - 08:28 .

[Mallissin]

Terraneaux wrote...

They should have just had Shep be stranded in space.  It would have been much more tolerable.

Further proving, a horde of smart fans with 20/20 vision hindsight will be able to write better plot bridges.

Kinda like the omnigel-powered guns instead of heatsinks.

[Merchant2006]

*Sighs*

[statesman1114]

Since you have to wear a helmet on the planet, isn't it possible that he could have died from hitting the planet or suffocating?

Modifié par statesman1114, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:11 .

[smudboy]

darkranger23 wrote...
My post was directed mostly towards the people that disregard his resurrection without thought.  The ones who say, "that's impossible."  Instead of, "how can you make me believe it's possible."

That said, I'm glad you posted.  You gave a thoughtful, intelligent reply, and I agree that it was clumsy storytelling.  But story was never my argument.  Bioware attempted to show  (which is a staple for good storytelling, but not always appropriate) instead of tell.  Something as complex as his mysterious resurrection deserved a side-mission of it's own, or at least some detailed exposition.  The opening cinematic that we got was rather vague.  More of a teaser for things-to-come than a proper explanation.

Your points are valid.  But I don't agree that no methods were chosen.  In fact, they covered all your points, they just did it poorly.  Bioware didn't clarify themselves, and that was the problem.  For instance, Shepard either died by hitting the planet, or floating in space, we know that, but which was it?  Bioware suggests Shepard hit the planet by adding a red glow growing around him as he neared it.

But to contradict themselves, Miranda later says he spent an excessive amount of time in a vacuum.  So either he died floating in space, or the planet had no atmosphere.  Unfortunately, we're led to believe the planet did have an atmosphere, and that he did fall toward it, because as he neared the planet, he glowed red.  Something caused by the friction of atmospheric entry.

Point two is either part of point one, or part of point three.  Either the way he died allowed his preservation, or Cerberus' preservation allowed his resurrection.  But again, too few details were given to draw any sort of conclusion.

So my point is, the concept wasn't the problem--anything can be handled in the realm of fiction--it was the execution.

Final comment.  I love to read and I love a good story, ME2, forgiving plot errors, has a great story.  It's character driven, as all great stories are.  And aside from some goofy dialogue, the characters stand out as living, breathing people that can be cared for.  That, to me, is a great story.

Two things I don't agree with: aside from the "great" part about the story, and BioWare attempting to show/tell Shepard's death/resurrection.  You either do it right, or not at all.  Clarity is rule #1 in storytelling, and if you can't get three very complex ideas put together coherently (enough to write supplemental material a la comic book that didn't explain anything), you're going to have to edit or re-write something.

I don't really care what BioWare wants to show and tell us with ME.  (They could have vampires and teleporting rabbits, etc.) It could be simple, it could be complex, it could be biblical.  So long as all of it is clear, I am one happy fellow.

Other then those two I agree with everything you wrote.

[statesman1114]

smudboy wrote...

darkranger23 wrote...
My post was directed mostly towards the people that disregard his resurrection without thought.  The ones who say, "that's impossible."  Instead of, "how can you make me believe it's possible."

That said, I'm glad you posted.  You gave a thoughtful, intelligent reply, and I agree that it was clumsy storytelling.  But story was never my argument.  Bioware attempted to show  (which is a staple for good storytelling, but not always appropriate) instead of tell.  Something as complex as his mysterious resurrection deserved a side-mission of it's own, or at least some detailed exposition.  The opening cinematic that we got was rather vague.  More of a teaser for things-to-come than a proper explanation.

Your points are valid.  But I don't agree that no methods were chosen.  In fact, they covered all your points, they just did it poorly.  Bioware didn't clarify themselves, and that was the problem.  For instance, Shepard either died by hitting the planet, or floating in space, we know that, but which was it?  Bioware suggests Shepard hit the planet by adding a red glow growing around him as he neared it.

But to contradict themselves, Miranda later says he spent an excessive amount of time in a vacuum.  So either he died floating in space, or the planet had no atmosphere.  Unfortunately, we're led to believe the planet did have an atmosphere, and that he did fall toward it, because as he neared the planet, he glowed red.  Something caused by the friction of atmospheric entry.

Point two is either part of point one, or part of point three.  Either the way he died allowed his preservation, or Cerberus' preservation allowed his resurrection.  But again, too few details were given to draw any sort of conclusion.

So my point is, the concept wasn't the problem--anything can be handled in the realm of fiction--it was the execution.

Final comment.  I love to read and I love a good story, ME2, forgiving plot errors, has a great story.  It's character driven, as all great stories are.  And aside from some goofy dialogue, the characters stand out as living, breathing people that can be cared for.  That, to me, is a great story.

Two things I don't agree with: aside from the "great" part about the story, and BioWare attempting to show/tell Shepard's death/resurrection.  You either do it right, or not at all.  Clarity is rule #1 in storytelling, and if you can't get three very complex ideas put together coherently (enough to write supplemental material a la comic book that didn't explain anything), you're going to have to edit or re-write something.

I don't really care what BioWare wants to show and tell us with ME.  (They could have vampires and teleporting rabbits, etc.) It could be simple, it could be complex, it could be biblical.  So long as all of it is clear, I am one happy fellow.

Other then those two I agree with everything you wrote.

Hey, instead of just ****ing about something you can't change, howsabout you think about reasons they might have made the scene the way they did. Maybe they kept it ambiguous because they had no idea how to bring someone back from the dead? Maybe he didn't entirely die? Look at the Princess Bride, the man in black was only "mostly" dead. So instead of whining, be a good human and shut your mouth about things you don't know about?

[Cucobr]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

[smudboy]

statesman1114 wrote...
Hey, instead of just ****ing about something you can't change, howsabout you think about reasons they might have made the scene the way they did. Maybe they kept it ambiguous because they had no idea how to bring someone back from the dead? Maybe he didn't entirely die? Look at the Princess Bride, the man in black was only "mostly" dead. So instead of whining, be a good human and shut your mouth about things you don't know about?

What does changing anything have to do with...anything?  We're making observations and coming up with creative understandings of how it could've worked.  If you don't like that then hey, take a breather, go for a walk, cause I ain't stopping on the comedy goldmine that are the holes in ME2's plot.

I fail to see what your reference to TPB means.  Actually I fail to see what you mean entirely.

But this is because you are dumb.  But I forgive you!

(Psst: there are literally dozens, (hundreds?) of ways how to tell a story on how to bring someone back from the dead in a sci-fi setting.  I personally don't recommend it, but writing a short story on the topic is no big deal.  You just gotta use your imagination and make sure you check your own work.)

(Hint: braaains.)

[statesman1114]

smudboy wrote...

statesman1114 wrote...
Hey, instead of just ****ing about something you can't change, howsabout you think about reasons they might have made the scene the way they did. Maybe they kept it ambiguous because they had no idea how to bring someone back from the dead? Maybe he didn't entirely die? Look at the Princess Bride, the man in black was only "mostly" dead. So instead of whining, be a good human and shut your mouth about things you don't know about?

What does changing anything have to do with...anything?  We're making observations and coming up with creative understandings of how it could've worked.  If you don't like that then hey, take a breather, go for a walk, cause I ain't stopping on the comedy goldmine that are the holes in ME2's plot.

I fail to see what your reference to TPB means.  Actually I fail to see what you mean entirely.

But this is because you are dumb.  But I forgive you!

(Psst: there are literally dozens, (hundreds?) of ways how to tell a story on how to bring someone back from the dead in a sci-fi setting.  I personally don't recommend it, but writing a short story on the topic is no big deal.  You just gotta use your imagination and make sure you check your own work.)

(Hint: braaains.)

See, this is why people think you are a troll. You just completely insulted someone else's (mine) ideas. Calling me an idiot is like the Pot calling the President black. It's stupid, and I'm better than you (which you seem to be saying to yourself quite a bit). And by the way, the TPB thing is just an example. I'm just saying that maybe you should be flexible in opinion without seeming like the jackass you apparently are.

[smudboy]

statesman1114 wrote...
See, this is why people think you are a troll. You just completely insulted someone else's (mine) ideas. Calling me an idiot is like the Pot calling the President black. It's stupid, and I'm better than you (which you seem to be saying to yourself quite a bit). And by the way, the TPB thing is just an example. I'm just saying that maybe you should be flexible in opinion without seeming like the jackass you apparently are.

No, you said I should do some re-writing, or offer some solution to the errors mentioned.  That's not my job, nor my interest.  They have writers for that.  I'm merely making observations, and then clarifying said observations with general effects of what those observations should've really meant/involved.

There's nothing wrong with calling people dumb. You want to take it personally?  Be my guest.  We're all dumb to each other, so really it's no big deal.

And I really don't care what people call me.

I am COMPELTELY FLEXIBLE.  *stretches* I need a good argument.  I like this argument to be backed up by evidence, facts, however.  That's all, really.  Evidence.  Good argument.  I'd happily nod my head in agreement if such arguments are presented.  Really, that's all it takes.

[crimzontearz]

jklinders wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

snip

I get it, it was lazy, it was a poor excuse and Bioware should know it but they will NEVER admitt it so....this is getting a little ridiculous is it not?

Also I understand that with no criticism there is no improvement.....but remember Bioware does not take it always that well

Only to those who will accept poor writing passively. If Bioware has trouble with the little bit of constructive criticism I have made in this topic then I should probably send them a bottle of Johnson and Johnson no more tears shampoo and an exhortion to grow up. Any professional person that does not try to improve on their mistakes deserves their eventual demise. What are they going to do? Ban me? For what? Saying that a a poorly written openening scene is poorly written?

To be clear I do not care at all about the Science. The science of the Mass Effrect is completely broken as it is. The problem I have is how bringing the dead back to life is completely out of line with the rest of the setting. And even that would be fine if the rest of the universe reacted as if it was as shocking as it would be.

We get none of that, and I can only conclude that one of 2 things happened.
1: The writing team ran out of time and decided to run with one of the biggest cliches in literature. But then had no     time to make it make sense.
or 2:Thety were too incompetent to come up with a way to force the whole Shepard Cerberus angle without it.

Take your pick, the writing around this sucked both ways. As a consumer, I see no harm in telling them that. I want them to do better after all.

ok, let me explain why I see it as pointless

first off let me start with stating the fact that I DO agree with you, I said it before, the whole "shepard died and came back through lazarus" as it is was handled in a lazy manner. It was also probably just an excuse to justify the DE-leveling of Shepard as well as the faction swtiching and to milk the KIA shepard trailer before E3 to rise the hype.

now, with that in mind I read in a very nice article on game infromer, from the pen (keyboard) of one of the many developers in the business, that often (nearly always) the lack of communication between developers and gamers/fans is a two way vicious cycle.

one the one hand you have the fans, who often are totally unable to articulate their opinions, their wants and their reasons. Their comments are often single line posts in random threads no better than " BEST THING EVAR!!!" or "RUINED 4EVAH" which leaves the developers with nearly nothing to work with.

on the other hand you have the developers who are so held down by their lawyers, their marketing departments, their branding departments and so on that in order to say even one single thing totally unrelated to anything top secret about the game, have to wait for three different approvals countersigned by a fourth department (I am making an hyperbole just to drive the point across). Not only that, but even if they COULD say anything freely they are by now SO afraid that everyone, and especially the specialized press,  will take a single sentence out of context and make a big deal out of it that they just prefer to remain silent. 

this in turn pisses the "intelligent and articulate" posters and fans who in the long run either turn silent or become bitter thus refueling the cycle. Why even the  very developer who wtore the article said himself that he was not about to send that anywhere without it being first approved by marketing representatives and lawyers...and the article had ZERO to do with any game in any way shape or form. 


That said, Bioware does not lack intelligent and articulate gamers (after all we are not talking about bungie.....:innocent:  kidding kidding) and we all know that.

So now we are still stuck with the other half of the problem. Bioware employees will not talk to the fans, not unless it is about matters of forum policeing, jokes, or teasers about upcoming events. Even when they DO talk to us in a more open dialogue about the upcoming games (I am thinking about Christina and Preston in particular) the  end result is cut downby the aforementioned problem. An example....the old NG+ in ME2 issue.... we were given a whooole loads of excuses about why it was not going to be implemented and the promise about new "systems" that would feel like NG+ that were picked apart by the fans who totally did not believe they were the truth. Nobody ever answered even tho we were personally asked by the developers why we wanted NG+ back and what we liked about it .
In the end NG+ was put back in but cut down...again upon aking WHY it was cut down feature wise we still got no answers at all. No real ones at least

that is just an example...there are more and some do not even involve the game per se

Paid day one DLC that was ripped from the game (not ME in particular but still) , the Ammo system, The inverse difficulty curve of NG+ Insanity, the **** going on with Ashley, Liara and Kaiden, Conrand Verner,  the lack of Male/Male romance, the GOD AWFUL  aiming system of the Hammerhead....

See some of these issues are attreibuted to evil EA and there is little we can do about that...others existed even in previous games and could have been fixed in this one, others are new but could have been fixed EASILY by now by a few lines of code...yet they are not. People have voiced themselves clearly, at length, and very eloquently about it...and what was the result? nothing...less than nothing as we do not get to talk to the devs and get real answers as per why nothing has happened and/or why things have taken a certain less-than-intelligent direction.


so...uhm...why exactly are we rambling for?  out constructive criticism will never EVER turn into a dialogue so....it has become in my eyes pretty pointless...yes sometimes something seems to go the right way (the Talimance for instance...hehe I could not resist) and the whole modular armor system which happily replaced the previous unisuit system...and the constant stram of DLC...but it is  mudded with an avalanche of steps backward...I guess I am kinda losing hope and will possibly feel better if I see ME3 taking actual steps forward

until then...I feel it is pretty useless

[jklinders]

crimzontearz wrote...

jklinders wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

snip

I get it, it was lazy, it was a poor excuse and Bioware should know it but they will NEVER admitt it so....this is getting a little ridiculous is it not?

Also I understand that with no criticism there is no improvement.....but remember Bioware does not take it always that well

Only to those who will accept poor writing passively. If Bioware has trouble with the little bit of constructive criticism I have made in this topic then I should probably send them a bottle of Johnson and Johnson no more tears shampoo and an exhortion to grow up. Any professional person that does not try to improve on their mistakes deserves their eventual demise. What are they going to do? Ban me? For what? Saying that a a poorly written openening scene is poorly written?

To be clear I do not care at all about the Science. The science of the Mass Effrect is completely broken as it is. The problem I have is how bringing the dead back to life is completely out of line with the rest of the setting. And even that would be fine if the rest of the universe reacted as if it was as shocking as it would be.

We get none of that, and I can only conclude that one of 2 things happened.
1: The writing team ran out of time and decided to run with one of the biggest cliches in literature. But then had no     time to make it make sense.
or 2:Thety were too incompetent to come up with a way to force the whole Shepard Cerberus angle without it.

Take your pick, the writing around this sucked both ways. As a consumer, I see no harm in telling them that. I want them to do better after all.

ok, let me explain why I see it as pointless

first off let me start with stating the fact that I DO agree with you, I said it before, the whole "shepard died and came back through lazarus" as it is was handled in a lazy manner. It was also probably just an excuse to justify the DE-leveling of Shepard as well as the faction swtiching and to milk the KIA shepard trailer before E3 to rise the hype.

now, with that in mind I read in a very nice article on game infromer, from the pen (keyboard) of one of the many developers in the business, that often (nearly always) the lack of communication between developers and gamers/fans is a two way vicious cycle.

one the one hand you have the fans, who often are totally unable to articulate their opinions, their wants and their reasons. Their comments are often single line posts in random threads no better than " BEST THING EVAR!!!" or "RUINED 4EVAH" which leaves the developers with nearly nothing to work with.

on the other hand you have the developers who are so held down by their lawyers, their marketing departments, their branding departments and so on that in order to say even one single thing totally unrelated to anything top secret about the game, have to wait for three different approvals countersigned by a fourth department (I am making an hyperbole just to drive the point across). Not only that, but even if they COULD say anything freely they are by now SO afraid that everyone, and especially the specialized press,  will take a single sentence out of context and make a big deal out of it that they just prefer to remain silent. 

this in turn pisses the "intelligent and articulate" posters and fans who in the long run either turn silent or become bitter thus refueling the cycle. Why even the  very developer who wtore the article said himself that he was not about to send that anywhere without it being first approved by marketing representatives and lawyers...and the article had ZERO to do with any game in any way shape or form. 


That said, Bioware does not lack intelligent and articulate gamers (after all we are not talking about bungie.....:innocent:  kidding kidding) and we all know that.

So now we are still stuck with the other half of the problem. Bioware employees will not talk to the fans, not unless it is about matters of forum policeing, jokes, or teasers about upcoming events. Even when they DO talk to us in a more open dialogue about the upcoming games (I am thinking about Christina and Preston in particular) the  end result is cut downby the aforementioned problem. An example....the old NG+ in ME2 issue.... we were given a whooole loads of excuses about why it was not going to be implemented and the promise about new "systems" that would feel like NG+ that were picked apart by the fans who totally did not believe they were the truth. Nobody ever answered even tho we were personally asked by the developers why we wanted NG+ back and what we liked about it .
In the end NG+ was put back in but cut down...again upon aking WHY it was cut down feature wise we still got no answers at all. No real ones at least

that is just an example...there are more and some do not even involve the game per se

Paid day one DLC that was ripped from the game (not ME in particular but still) , the Ammo system, The inverse difficulty curve of NG+ Insanity, the **** going on with Ashley, Liara and Kaiden, Conrand Verner,  the lack of Male/Male romance, the GOD AWFUL  aiming system of the Hammerhead....

See some of these issues are attreibuted to evil EA and there is little we can do about that...others existed even in previous games and could have been fixed in this one, others are new but could have been fixed EASILY by now by a few lines of code...yet they are not. People have voiced themselves clearly, at length, and very eloquently about it...and what was the result? nothing...less than nothing as we do not get to talk to the devs and get real answers as per why nothing has happened and/or why things have taken a certain less-than-intelligent direction.


so...uhm...why exactly are we rambling for?  out constructive criticism will never EVER turn into a dialogue so....it has become in my eyes pretty pointless...yes sometimes something seems to go the right way (the Talimance for instance...hehe I could not resist) and the whole modular armor system which happily replaced the previous unisuit system...and the constant stram of DLC...but it is  mudded with an avalanche of steps backward...I guess I am kinda losing hope and will possibly feel better if I see ME3 taking actual steps forward

until then...I feel it is pretty useless

Very little to disagree with here. Except the part where you say it is pointless.

The fanboys and fangirls of this forum had actually driven me into hiding for a bit simply because anytime someone says something that they disagree with even slightly a whole stampede of them come in and try to trample them down. I am a (mostly) responsible adult and really have little time for fanboys. This thread would be 6 pages long tops if it was not for the legions of apologists who never want to question the perfection of ME shouting down the at first perfectly reasonable dissent.

I don't care if Bioware answers. I just hope they read it. I blame EA for nothing. Bioware sold themselves to EA. As far as I am aware it was not a hostile takeover. Bioware made their bed. If it is not very comfortable, tough. They made the call. When you do not run own show being subject to someone else's deadlines. It is the business and I do not feel any sympathy. They either have to adjust or get ground under. Developers, or any kind of artist that goes around pandering to their entire fanbase eventually end pissing everyone off.

I am sad to see them come to this but the writing is on the wall. I just hope they get ME 3 out before they go completely to pieces. It has not gone so far that they cannot turn it around. They have shown with ME that they can turn out as damn good action/RPG. I just don't want to see the writing suffer for it.

[crimzontearz]

you can only hope...and right now, until proven wrong I have very little hope


also...since there is no dialogue we/the fans never really know why a step in a certain direction has been made, not really at least, as such we are left wondering and becoming more and more bitter at times. So when we perceive somethign as the developers totally ignoring what we say there is no one to come and say "no guys it is not that we are ignoring you...it's just that his and this and this other factors prevented us from taking a step in a different direction"....so as I see it....it remains a pointless exercise in aggrivation

Modifié par crimzontearz, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:18 .

[GnusmasTHX]

Actually, 100% reproduction is possible.

[jklinders]

crimzontearz wrote...

you can only hope...and right now, until proven wrong I have very little hope


also...since there is no dialogue we/the fans never really know why a step in a certain direction has been made, not really at least, as such we are left wondering and becoming more and more bitter at times. So when we perceive somethign as the developers totally ignoring what we say there is no one to come and say "no guys it is not that we are ignoring you...it's just that his and this and this other factors prevented us from taking a step in a different direction"....so as I see it....it remains a pointless exercise in aggrivation

Well thankfully there is a perfectly rational explanation for that. The series is not yet complete. If the writers came in here too frequently they might end up spilling the beans on the end game ruining the story for everyone. I'll just have to content myself with "a wizard did it" and hope they don't screw the pooch even worse at the conclusion.

[implodinggoat]

Dusty Everman wrote...

smudboy wrote...

http://social.biowar...93197/7#2709226

However Shepard is not starting at free fall, and we have to assume there are no other objects or air resistance stopping or slowing their descent.  Shepard's moving at the "Velocity Of Detonation", or whatever explosion pushed them into space.  Explosive forces range from 1800-10300m/s, but we'll just go with 5000m/s.  That's roughly 11,000 miles/h, in space.

Shepard instantly went from 0 mph to 11000 mph from the destruction of the cockpit?  The cockpit more breaks apart than explodes, and you see Shepard drift from it at maybe 20mph tops.  I'm no physicist, but this argument seems flawed to me.

Physics lesson:

You see Shepard drift away from the cockpit at a speed of about 20MPH relative to the cockpit; but if the cockpit itself is moving at an extreme speed itself then that means that Shepard is moving away from the cockpit at 20 MPH; but he is still moving in the same direction as the cockpit at more or less the same speed that the Normandy itself was moving.

For example if I jumped out of the side of a train right before it entered a tunnel I would splat into the entrance of the tunnel since I would still retain most of the forward momentum of the train itself.  This is so because your body shares the same forward momentum of the train, so long as you are on the train. When you jump of the train the momentum is no longer being sustained by the forward movement of the train; but it doesn't magically dissapear.  Consider if momentum instantly dissappeared the moment that thrust was removed then you wouldn't need brakes on your car since the instant you took your foot of the accelorator the car would instantly come to a stop.  You also wouldn't need airbags or seatbelts since their entire job is to impede your forward momentum in the event that the car comes to a rapid stop.

The effects of momentum are even more pronounced in space since their is no atmospheric friction to slow things down.

Shepard's body could be preserved in the vacum of space and be revived if he entered orbit around the planet; but if he entered the planet's atmosphere his momentum would be converted into heat energy due to atmospheric friction or into a massive sudden jolt of negative Gs and kinetic energy as he impacted the planet's surface.  In such a scenario Shepard would wind up as either a pile of ashes incinerated by the heat of reentry or a pile of goo smeared across the planets surface as a result of planetary impact.  In either case there is no way that his brain would be intact to the extent that his memories could be preserved.

This leaves two possible scenarios.

A:  Shepard's body entered orbit around the planet and was preserved by the vacum of space.  Or...

B:  Shepard is dead and the character in ME2 is in fact a clone/ cyborg hybrid constructed by Cerberus and programmed with artificial memories (like that replicant chick in Blade Runner).

Modifié par implodinggoat, 26 juillet 2010 - 02:38 .

[implodinggoat]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Actually, 100% reproduction is possible.

Quantum physics say no.  I present to you the...

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

[Inverness Moon]

implodinggoat wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Actually, 100% reproduction is possible.

Quantum physics say no.  I present to you the...

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

That is not necessarily applicable here. Uncertainty scales with the precision you're trying to measure in.

[wolfstanus]

Reptilian Rob wrote...

Im a whale biologist...

[smudboy]

implodinggoat wrote...
Physics lesson:

A:  Shepard's body entered orbit around the planet and was preserved by the vacum of space.  Or...

B:  Shepard is dead and the character in ME2 is in fact a clone/ cyborg hybrid constructed by Cerberus and programmed with artificial memories (like that replicant chick in Blade Runner).

Hey thanks for the detail.  I know my numbers are way off, but there's no way those objects in space are moving at around ~20 mph, with explosive forces.  Let alone any way Shepard's body, and especially their brain, could be preserved after such events, let alone planetary impact.

[Omicrone]

The consensus is that planetary impact after free fall results in a pretty poor outcome for the human body. Alchera has ice however. Lots of it. Ice is more fragile than rocks or hard soil, it can break, it can form crevasses and things like that. You don't know for sure where Shepard fell. He's definitely gonna have lots of broken bones, that's for sure. But hey, his armor has kinetic shields for a reason. He's moving close to the speed of a bullet in free fall, therefore those kinetic shields will activate upon impact. His body will suffer considerably, that's for sure, but I'm not sure if it will "smear" across the planet's surface. It depends on where he falls, which again, Bioware omitted mentioning.

[Raxxman]

It's already been established that people have survived terminal velocity falls in real life.
It's therefore not really a stretch to imagine that Shepard didn't survive a terminal velocity fall, but remained largely in one piece.

[smudboy]

Raxxman wrote...

It's already been established that people have survived terminal velocity falls in real life.
It's therefore not really a stretch to imagine that Shepard didn't survive a terminal velocity fall, but remained largely in one piece.

Except Alchera does not have as much atmosphere, nor is as dense, as earth.

And that Shepard was moving at thousands of miles an hour before atmospheric entry.  (The higher in the atmosphere you are, the faster you travel as you eventually reach terminal velocity.)

And Shepard was already dead before impact, hitting a carbon and ice crust, which is not exactly a soft surface.