931 réponses à ce sujet

[smudboy]

earthbornFemShep wrote...

In all forms of creativity, using your imagination is required to get the most out of the experience.

So I need an imagination to get the most out of an unexplained passage in a story?  If the artist never filled in the details of something like resurrection, how can I suddenly imagine how that all works with very little information, descriptions, details, or expositions?

I think you're saying the reader needs to use their imagation.  You're right, they do.  But they're not creating the world: the author is.  We're just along for the ride, a passive observer, and they tell us what to imagine.  If they don't tell us what to imagine, or what they tell us to imagine doesn't make any sense, or they haven't provided us the logic on how to perceive that world, then the perception is gone: the audience no longer believes what they're being told, shown or described.

Though it is most important in books and theatre, it is still important in other mediums.  If all authors spoonfed us logical explanations for everything, it would take something out of the experience--not to mention becoming dull.

I definitely perceive the story the way the author wrote it.  Their descriptions, adjectives and the like, color the world they're presenting me.  My imagination does not suddenly invent things that the author doesn't give me.  For both sci-fi and fantasy, the author must take great pains and time to describe completely alien worlds to me.

For sci-fi, we do have some science to fall back on, which makes the journey half as long.  But it's still a journey.  I also do not envision that journey, the author, or artist, does for me.  I merely perceive it as they show, tell or describe it for me.

This is not to say that authors have no responsibility to make events fit coherently in the story; that is for the audience to decide in the end (EDIT: by choosing whether or not to purchase). 

The authors have all the responsibility of telling a clear, coherent story.  I am the audience.  It is not my job to envision stuff that isn't there.  It's through the author's skill and penning a tale that my imagination perceives their world.  I shouldn't have to invent anything.

Modifié par smudboy, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:55 .

[smudboy]

Ramikadyc wrote...
So, does the resurrection thing make sense, from a sci-fi perspective? Yes, it does. That's all I care about.

How in ME2 does the resurrection of Shepard make sense?

Do you think it does a good job of telling a story that makes sense? Do you think something should be different? Do you enjoy or dislike this particular plot device? That's what I don't care about, because it has absolutely nothing to do with "does this make sense." Your approval in any of those departments is not required for the story to make sense.

With what context are you asking these questions?  To Shepard's resurrection?

My acceptance of the illusion of the story is rule #1, that should never be broken.  If sufficient storytelling, exposition, description, backstory, etc., doesn't support what I'm currently being told/shown, then yes, the suspension of disblief is gone.

What you're arguing about is how good the story is, or how well the story does in tying the plot lines together. I guess you just don't realize it. That, however, is not what I'm bothering with.

No, I'm arguing about how "Resurrection of Shepard is impossible."  Because the narrative does not provide me with enough answers to the many questions it raises.

But I do understand that it's fun to talk about. That's just not what I'm interested in here.

Well what are you talking about then?

[earthbornFemShep]

smudboy, I think you and I are finally on the same page. We both agree that it is the author's job to frame the story and fill in the appropriate details. It is the reader's job to interpret missing information or what may be alluded (however, the audience should not be overly taxed with this task).



Our disagreement seems to stem from the fact that you and I differ in the amount of background/explanation we require. Obviously, in this case we are both right (and hence both wrong). For me, the framework the author has laid is enough for me to imagine how this rebirth of shepard could be possible. In your case, it seems you feel that too much has been left up in the air and would prefer a more concrete explanation. In this case, it is best to agree to disagree.



The only point I wish to make clear is the point that I've been trying to make originally: in scifi, the impossible is possible.



Would you agree that if they had answered the questions you asked in a previous post that you would probably be arguing against the OP?

[StarcloudSWG]

Really, it seems to me you want a voiceover with 'technical' details and diagrams explaining what each thing shown in the opening sequence is for. I think you've been spoiled imaginatively by Star Trek's technobabbling. And that because you don't get that voiceover and explicit descriptions of what's happening and why, that you call it a plot hole and feel disappointed.



Whereas from a true storytelling perspective, what they showed was all they needed. This isn't the story of "How we rebuilt Shepard" this is the story of what happens AFTER they rebuilt Shepard. Plus there are sufficient clues that an imaginative person can connect the dots.

[Pauravi]

smudboy wrote...

The authors have all the responsibility
of telling a clear, coherent story.  I am the audience.  It is not my
job to envision stuff that isn't there.  It's through the author's skill
and penning a tale that my imagination perceives their world.  I
shouldn't have to invent anything.

I agree, but it seems as if people are demanding technical minutae about how Shepard's rebuilding was performed.  I don't think this is part of "the story", this is part of suspending disbelief.  This is the reader's responsibility, and I think that the writers give us plenty of room to allow us to believe that such a thing  is possible in the ME universe, even as unprecedented as it is.

For anyone to even take a step through the door of a sci-fi story, they need to let go of what they believe is possible.  If all of us demanded detailed technical explanations for everything that happens in sci-fi stories, EVERY sci-fi story would fall apart.  You're simply not being reasonable.

Modifié par Pauravi, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Moiaussi]

earthbornFemShep wrote...

If you are arguing that you just don't like this whole resurrection idea, that is one thing.  However, shep becoming a "cyborg bunny"  would be catastrophe, obviously.  I'm not saying there isn't bad scifi. I'm simply saying the OP's argument is not sound because anything can happen in scifi.

Of course anything can happen in science fiction. Anything can happen in regular fiction. The relevant question is.... should it?

Imagination is needed in reading any fiction, and in fact is useful in reading most non-fiction. If too much is needed though, then you lose the ability of the readers to suspend disbelief, or alternatively, are asking them to make up their own story, which they don't need the writer's help with.

[smudboy]

earthbornFemShep wrote...
Our disagreement seems to stem from the fact that you and I differ in the amount of background/explanation we require. Obviously, in this case we are both right (and hence both wrong). For me, the framework the author has laid is enough for me to imagine how this rebirth of shepard could be possible. In your case, it seems you feel that too much has been left up in the air and would prefer a more concrete explanation. In this case, it is best to agree to disagree.

Tell me then, what has the author laid bare for you, to make you believe Shepard's resurrection is possible?  Since I can't see it for the life of me, you obviously saw something I didn't.

Would you agree that if they had answered the questions you asked in a previous post that you would probably be arguing against the OP?

It really depends on how they answer.

Regardless, the story of Shepard's death, preservation and resurrection is flawed.  They'd have to completely fill in the blanks.

[StarcloudSWG]

What I saw in those cutscene videos: The use of innovative medigel formulations and variants to restore cellular viability. The use of a variety of implants on organs and the spinal column and other key points of the body to restore autonomous and voluntary nerve functions. Clean-room surgery using robotics to minimize contamination and bacterial degredation.

What you saw in those cutscene videos: "Oh come on, I'm supposed to believe some blue goop and shiny metal things are supposed to bring a dead guy back to life?"

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:45 .

[smudboy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...
Really, it seems to me you want a voiceover with 'technical' details and diagrams explaining what each thing shown in the opening sequence is for. I think you've been spoiled imaginatively by Star Trek's technobabbling. And that because you don't get that voiceover and explicit descriptions of what's happening and why, that you call it a plot hole and feel disappointed.

No I don't want technical details and diagrams.  However, if that's the route they're going, the Medical (medicine) Miracle route for resurrection, you'd imagine that kind of exposition.  They sort of do that with Miranda, but that described sub-zero temperatures, and some kind of techno-babble regarding synthetic or cybernetic or something (I don't recall.)

Seriously, if they're going to use science?  They can just keep it sci-fi and make the solution simple.  Reconstructing a body?  Okay, then some rare, hyper-replicating compound of concentrated nutrients and enzymes, that re-reads the DNA of the cell and begins reconstruction of missing tissues.  Call it "unobtainium" or some such.  Give it the "mad scientist" or "genius" that we can point to, talk to, and even ask questions about (which I thought Mordin would've been perfect for.)  There are so many simple ways to lampshade this.

At least let me buy the idea they were resurrected, whereas the alternative a clone, or fabrication, is the only possible solution.

Whereas from a true storytelling perspective, what they showed was all they needed. This isn't the story of "How we rebuilt Shepard" this is the story of what happens AFTER they rebuilt Shepard. Plus there are sufficient clues that an imaginative person can connect the dots.

Excuse me, pardon me.  But what exactly did they show us was all we needed?  I do recall a lot of nonsensical things they told us, and I recall seeing a cutscene of mystery blue fluid and glowing skeleton clamps, and a robotic surgical arm cutting something.  This says nothing of Shepard's death or preservation.

This is the story of Shepard's Death, Preservation, Resurrection, and stopping the Collectors.  I distinctly remember moving Shepard through the attacked Normandy.  Shepard then dies.  Shepard then wakes up in a medical space station.

What are these sufficient clues that an imaginative person can use to connect the dots?  Why must an imaginative person connect the dots?  What are you talking about?  Why must one use their imagination to connect the dots?  Is this now a "How did Shepard get rebuilt" mystery?  How can anyone connect dots, or see patterns in non-explained, unclear data?  That's fundamentally impossible.  That's like telling a murder mystery without giving the audience all the evidence to whodunit.  I'm quite sure it isn't a mystery, because the narrative is either completely dodging the issue, or not even providing information, which makes me think that Shepard wasn't resurrected in the first place.

[earthbornFemShep]

smudboy wrote...
Tell me then, what has the author laid bare for you, to make you believe Shepard's resurrection is possible?  Since I can't see it for the life of me, you obviously saw something I didn't.

It is not so much one thing, it is their presentation of the universe and what is possible in general.  I think Pauravi summarizes it most succinctly.

Pauravi wrote...
I think that the writers give
us plenty of room to allow us to believe that such a thing is possible
in the ME universe, even as unprecedented as it is.

Basically, I believe that due to the presence of FTL, mass relays, geth, the creation of the collectors, husk technology, genophage, etc. that this resurrection is not beyond the realm of possibility.

EDIT: fixed grammar

Modifié par earthbornFemShep, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:51 .

[smudboy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

What I saw in those cutscene videos: The use of innovative medigel formulations and variants to restore cellular viability. The use of a variety of implants on organs and the spinal column and other key points of the body to restore autonomous and voluntary nerve functions. Clean-room surgery using robotics to minimize contamination and bacterial degredation.

That is not an objective observation.  You're making this up.  That's not our job, that's the author's job.

You need to be more objective with your knowledge.  You saw a semi-transparent blue fluid, supposedly flow into some microscopic tissue, like a vein or artery, as it seemes blood cells started flowing again.  You saw glowing clamps attached to bone: you did not see it restore autonomous and voluntary nerve functions.  No one can "see" autonomous and voluntary nerve functions on a skeletal level.  You saw a robotic arm move pick up a blade, then disappear out of sight, then return while dispensing the blade covered in blood.

We can think that that mystery fluid and those mystery clamps do those sorts of things, but we can't start talking about it in some imagined detail as if that's what actually happened.

What you saw in those cutscene videos: "Oh come on, I'm supposed to believe some blue goop and shiny metal things are supposed to bring a dead guy back to life?"

No, that's not my opinion at all.  What, are you imagining my opinion too?  Shall I stop arguing with you, since it's as if anything I say is wrong, and you'll just make up your own opinion of my own thoughts anyway?  Please say so, so wecan save each other the time.

[StarcloudSWG]

Exactly. The difference between our opinions is this: I am an active watcher. I imagine what's going on. I don't need explicit explanations of everything I see because I can fill in the blanks myself.

You're a passive watcher. You take in what you see and don't assign explanations to anything. You wait for an explanation before you fit it into a place in the storyline.

That's how I interepret the difference between our points of view.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:00 .

[smudboy]

earthbornFemShep wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Tell me then, what has the author laid bare for you, to make you believe Shepard's resurrection is possible?  Since I can't see it for the life of me, you obviously saw something I didn't.

It is not so much one thing, it is their presentation of the universe and what is possible in general.  I think Pauravi summarizes it most succinctly.

No you misunderstand me: what specifically did they show us of the universe that made you buy that Shepard was resurrected?  I do not want a general understanding of presentation.  I want a specific series of scenes, dialog, narration, etc.  If you please.

Basically, I believe that due to the presence of FTL, mass relays, geth, the creation of the collectors, husk technology, genophage, etc. that this resurrection is not beyond the realm of possibility.

EDIT: fixed grammar

What does FTL have to do with Shepard's resurrection?
What does Mass Relays have to do with Shepard's resurrection?
What do the Geth have to do with Shepard's resurrection?
What does the Creation of the Collectors FTL have to do with Shepard's resurrection?
What does husk technology have to do with Shepard's resurrection?
What does the genophage have to do with Shepard's resurrection?

You're missing what I'm asking you.  I'm asking you to explain to me how Shepard was resurrected.  If you cannot do that, then you're making this up, and your opinion is biased and subjective.

For example, in Star Trek, when Picard dies due to his artificial heart breakign down, Q comes in after a big exposition on his life, gives him a second chance at it, and then fixes their artificial heart.
For example, in Babylon 5, when Sheridan falls down the precipice on Z'ha'dum, Lorien "catches" Sheridan, and allows him to die.  He then shares his life force with Sheridan, giving him an extended lease on life.

Now, do the same for Mass Effect 2 with Shepard.

[Iakus]

earthbornFemShep wrote...


It is not so much one thing, it is their presentation of the universe and what is possible in general.  I think Pauravi summarizes it most succinctly.

Pauravi wrote...
I think that the writers give
us plenty of room to allow us to believe that such a thing is possible
in the ME universe, even as unprecedented as it is.

Basically, I believe that due to the presence of FTL, mass relays, geth, the creation of the collectors, husk technology, genophage, etc. that this resurrection is not beyond the realm of possibility.

EDIT: fixed grammar

The existence of mass effect fields, AI, gene splicing, and nanotech do not equal ressurection.  Not unless Shepard, the real Shepard is truly dead and what's walking around is is a clone/AI hybrid (which in itself might have made for the springboard for  pretty cool story about the definition of humanity)

We shouldn't have to handwave away something as momentous as death and ressurection with a handwave and "it's amazing what can be done with mass effect fields nowadays"

[smudboy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Exactly. The difference between our opinions is this: I am an active watcher. I imagine what's going on. I don't need explicit explanations of everything I see because I can fill in the blanks myself.

Firstly there's no such thing as an active watcher.

Secondly, if you wish to use this definition, it is inherently false.  I also imagine what's going on.  I need to.  This is how perception works.  I perceive something by envisioning it in my imagination.  Without imagination, I can't understand words, or sentences, or paintings, or moving pictures, etc.

You're a passive watcher. You take in what you see and don't assign explanations to anything. You wait for an explanation before you fit it into a place in the storyline.

Excuse me?  Pardon me, but how do you know I don't assign my own explanations to anything?  How do you know I'm not quite scientifically and causally brilliant, and good at logical deduction, too?  How do you know I also don't start thinking up wild, creative solutions to the effects before my eyes?

That's the difference between our points of view.

What's the difference?  You invented a term that is impossible to exist, then state I don't use my imagination.

My argument on the resurrection of Shepard is that the story simply didn't provide enough details, literary devices, or things in general, to make me go "Oh, that's how.  I buy it."

For you, apparently it has.  So I'm asking, where in the narrative did it show, tell, explain or describe Shepard's resurrection?  I can use my imagination just as much as the next person, but it must be based on objective data, or else you're taking the place of the author.

If you're taking the place of the author, then the story is fundamentally flawed, and you're merely apologizing by filling in the blanks, not by deduction, but by your own imagination, which is not what a sci-fi story, that is trying to explain a medical miracle resurrection, is supposed to do.

[Pacifien]

smudboy wrote...
Seriously, if they're going to use science?  They can just keep it sci-fi and make the solution simple.  Reconstructing a body?  Okay, then some rare, hyper-replicating compound of concentrated nutrients and enzymes, that re-reads the DNA of the cell and begins reconstruction of missing tissues.  Call it "unobtainium" or some such.  Give it the "mad scientist" or "genius" that we can point to, talk to, and even ask questions about (which I thought Mordin would've been perfect for.)  There are so many simple ways to lampshade this.

Are you advocating technobabble to give the illusion of plausibility? That's the worst kind of sci-fi.

[smudboy]

Pacifien wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Seriously, if they're going to use science?  They can just keep it sci-fi and make the solution simple.  Reconstructing a body?  Okay, then some rare, hyper-replicating compound of concentrated nutrients and enzymes, that re-reads the DNA of the cell and begins reconstruction of missing tissues.  Call it "unobtainium" or some such.  Give it the "mad scientist" or "genius" that we can point to, talk to, and even ask questions about (which I thought Mordin would've been perfect for.)  There are so many simple ways to lampshade this.

Are you advocating technobabble to give the illusion of plausibility? That's the worst kind of sci-fi.

Unexplained technobabble is usually bad.  I am advocating a narrative that clearly explains what's going on, regardless of the content.

For example, we're dealing with resurrection.  Ok, so, the Resurection Machine.  The Lazarus Pit.  The elixir of Eternal Youth.  This is not techno babble, but if something like that was there -- something we could point to, reference, etc -- then we'd go "oh, that's what caused it."  The rest of the exposition could be surrounding how that thing came about, came to be, was obtained, which could be further lampshaded by the Genius Savant Doctor or Wizard or some such, 2 years, lots of money, etc.  But we've got nothing to wrap out heads around save ambiguous cutscenes of microscopic shots of a vein, some bones, and a rotating skeleton with a 3D heart beating and a pulse counter.

ME2 has a threefold problem.  There is a lack of exposition on Shepard's death, preservation and resurrection.  So they simply must fill in the blanks with what happened.  Jacob's ridiculous account describing Shepard's state of death is nonsensical, and Miranda's audio logs for Shepard's resurrection progress is not helping to being downright wrong in some cases.  And I don't even want to get into supplemental comic book material on Liara (because I never read it), which should've been in the main story.

Then there's the complete uselessness of having Shepard come back from the dead, when no one really cares about it anyway.

[Ser Isely]

Thats like when Star Wars  went bust trying to explain how the force works with Midi-chlorians.....

Modifié par Ser Isely, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:20 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Ser Isely wrote...

Thats like when Star Wars  went bust trying to explain how the force works with Midi-chlorians.....

Looks like Lucas is a fan of Parasite Eve (the book or the game)

[StarcloudSWG]

smudboy wrote...

[snipping things to get to the core of the argument]

My argument on the resurrection of Shepard is that the story simply didn't provide enough details, literary devices, or things in general, to make me go "Oh, that's how.  I buy it."

For you, apparently it has.  So I'm asking, where in the narrative did it show, tell, explain or describe Shepard's resurrection?  I can use my imagination just as much as the next person, but it must be based on objective data, or else you're taking the place of the author.

If you're taking the place of the author, then the story is fundamentally flawed, and you're merely apologizing by filling in the blanks, not by deduction, but by your own imagination, which is not what a sci-fi story, that is trying to explain a medical miracle resurrection, is supposed to do.

Then please tell us your interpretation of what you saw on screen. My only experience with you has been your observed activity and words on these boards, and my opinion is that simply put, you are firmly in the "If it hasn't been shown and there's no voice over explaining what's happening in the cutscene, there's not sufficient evidence to make it believable."  Show your own interpretation of what's happening, based on what you see, based on what you hear, based on the video logs.

And here's something from inside the game. "I don't want to bore you with tech, but the [blahblahblah]" "Ken, you're boring the commander with tech! In short, if we had the couplings, we'd save a lot of maintenance time each day."

Science fiction does not need technical explanations. Especially in something that's a lot closer to space opera than 2001:A Space Oddessy.

[smudboy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

Then please tell us your interpretation of what you saw on screen. My only experience with you has been your observed activity and words on these boards, and my opinion is that simply put, you are firmly in the "If it hasn't been shown and there's no voice over explaining what's happening in the cutscene, there's not sufficient evidence to make it believable."  Show your own interpretation of what's happening, based on what you see, based on what you hear, based on the video logs.

I saw exactly what everyone else saw.  I've detailed this in my video.

-I saw Shepard hurtle toward the planet while wiggling and gasping for air
-I saw a bunch of cutscenes involving blue fluid being injected microscopically, and glowing clamps robotically attached to bone, which seems to have some kind of revitalization to the function of the tissues there.

Then Shepard's alive.

-I then listened to Miranda's audio logs, and Jacob describing how Shepard was "meat and tubes" and "dead as dead can be" and that the body was at "sub-zero temperatures", and was in worse condition than expected.

None of this explains, by showing or telling us, the threefold Shepard problem, and the questions that arise from it.

Science fiction does not need technical explanations. Especially in something that's a lot closer to space opera than 2001:A Space Oddessy.

No, but if you're going the sci-fi route, that is, if you're using a medical miracle -- science -- to explain resurrection, you have to write it properly.  ME2 went with the science, and didn't write it properly.

They could've still gone the medical miracle route, and provided the Resurrection Machine (or other such amazing things, as I've described before), and that wouldn't require technical explanations.

[Radgen1]

"Then there's the complete uselessness of having Shepard come back from the dead, when no one really cares about it anyway."

Someone needs to google Joseph Campbell and his insights on myth. There is a reason that death/ressurection stories crop up so often. There is an almost cutural template to the "Hero's Journey" and in the west in particular where death and ressurection are often key elements.

Mass Effects story is heavily influenced by that basic template and almost has to have a death and ressurection event. How it occurs is almost irrelevant to that it DOES occur. Since Shepard's journey takes place in a technological setting, THAT is how it is accomplished(where old myths used some sort of mystical explaination). The details are not the important part. Mass Effect is a modern version of a myth story. If you are looking at the story from some other perspective you are going to find problems with it. That doesn't mean there is a problem with the story.

There are issues with ME's story in that there are more than a few internal logical fallicies, but implausibility of basic plot points compared to "real" world science or because there wasn't enought technical exposistion for a few obsessive players isn't much of a black mark.

Modifié par Radgen1, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:36 .

[smudboy]

Radgen1 wrote...

"Then there's the complete uselessness of having Shepard come back from the dead, when no one really cares about it anyway."

Someone needs to google Joseph Campbell and his insights on myth. There is a reason that death/ressurection stories crop up so often. There is an almost cutural template to the "Hero's Journey" and in the west in particular where death and ressurection are often key elements.

Mass Effects story is heavily influenced by that basic template and almost has to have a death and ressurection event. How it occurs is almost irrelevant to that it DOES occur. Since Shepard's journey takes place in a technological setting, THAT is how it is accomplished(where old myths used some sort of mystical explaination). The details are not the important part. Mass Effect is a modern version of a myth story. If you are looking at the story from some other perspective you are going to find problems with it. That doesn't mean there is a problem with the story.

There are issues with ME's story in that there are more than a few internal logical fallicies, but implausibility of basic plot points compared to "real" world science or because there wasn't enought technical exposistion for a few obsessive players isn't much of a black mark.

I have no doubt that most quest stories, where the protagonist is the hero, takes lessons or inspiration by The Hero's Journey.

Mass Effect most certainly does not need to have a death/resurrection event.  You're forgetting that the Hero's Journey is focused on the development of the self, that is, the character of the protgaonist, and the physical tribulations are the means to that. The focus in the internal conflicts and growths of the protagonist, and the journey is usually one of self discovery.  Now, if Mass Effect followed that formula, they got it completely wrong.  Shepard doesn't grow or change, let alone have any internal conflicts to speak of.  The plot gets pushed along just fine, and Shepard's along for the ride.

The best example is to compare it to ME1, where Shepard was an active protagonist, making their own choices and is integral to the plot.  In ME2, TIM is the plot provider for everything, and Shepard could be replaced by anyone at any stage, and the plot would be fulfilled.

This isn't about technical exposition, but the proper exposition.  One does not start the race with a boatload of questions within the first 10 minutes, only to have it all handwaved away, when you realize you just got a second lease on life, yet no one, or anyone who knew you before, doesn't seem to care or is too phazed to see Cyber Jesus.  Usually, character "transformation" occurs after a great personal conflict, and resurrection is usually part of that.  (See the Star Trek, and Babylon 5 examples I've listed above, who handled resurrection and introspective transformation in their own way.)  ME2 does none of these things, and gets the basics of storytelling, the physical, causal reality, all messed up.

[Moiaussi]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

What I saw in those cutscene videos: The use of innovative medigel formulations and variants to restore cellular viability. The use of a variety of implants on organs and the spinal column and other key points of the body to restore autonomous and voluntary nerve functions. Clean-room surgery using robotics to minimize contamination and bacterial degredation.

What you saw in those cutscene videos: "Oh come on, I'm supposed to believe some blue goop and shiny metal things are supposed to bring a dead guy back to life?"

Actually it is more the question of not merely restoring the body, but the mind as well, and restoring both perfectly identically except strangely for cybernetic replacements, which don't affect his blood chemistry at all and that noone seems to care about. TIM doesn't want to plant a chip for fear of it changing Shep's personality, but replacing large portions of his body with cybernetics is ok?
 
Humanity vs cybernetics vs AI is a powerful theme and seems to be completely ignored here, even in the organic vs Geth debates. Instead the whole ressurrection is used as a lame excuse for swtiching sides to Cerberus, which since Shep retains his memories and the council never actually declare shep dead means next to nothing.

What purpose, precisely, does the whole death and ressurection serve other than that? Killing time? Shep could just as easily been cleaning up Geth for the last two years. Or could have been pursuing dead ends when a new dramatic development occurs.

[StarcloudSWG]

Or been accidentally frozen.. I will agree that this wasn't the best way to handle a character reset for gameplay purposes.. there could have been others involving the same sort of absence from duty, being MIA presumed killed, etc..



Keep in mind too some of the people Shepard meets don't immediately come to the conclusion "You were dead!" but rather "You must have been alive!" Ashley/Kaiden is one of those people, clearly, because their responses don't indicate they thought Shepard was really dead.