1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...
Shepard is also traveling aboard a starship moving at maximum sublight speeds at the time of his ejection. I'd say that would add a fair bit to his velocity.

You know what else withstands flamethrowers quite well? Solid rock. Yet meteorites burn up easily.

And reentry temperatures are around 3,000 F. I don't know of any flamethrowers that reach or exceed that, so I question your research. Only welding torches reach temperatures in excess of 3,000+, and ME2's Firestorm is clearly not a welding torch.

The ship was not speeding towards the planet. In fact it seemed to be hanging there pretty stationary in space relative to the planet.

Meteorites, as I said, travel between 10km to 70km per SECOND. Orbital space craft by comparison only go about 28000km per HOUR.

Shepard was not traveling at either velocity.

Flamethrowers could get as hot as 1200 C

http://science.howst...hrower-info.htm

And the Shuttle reentry temp is 1650C

http://en.wikipedia....otection_system

So I'll give you that point. But there was no way Shep was going at 28000 KM per hour.

Edit: corrected the space shuttle speed. I think I meant to go 18K KM per hour but its even faster.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 26 mars 2011 - 07:17 .

[JKoopman]

I don't recall the Normandy crash site being at the bottom of a gently-sloping mountain or ravine, so I'm going to have to question the legitemacy of that theory.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

Even if he went splat, it's not like a cartoon, it'd be more like when you run over a squirrel. He still has his skin and all of his blood but all his bones are broken and he's sort of ripped up in alot of parts on his body. Shepard probably split in half and lost some limbs and his spine probably broke in several places and his body was in several pieces but they used thier big cerberus machines to grow new skin and muscle and bone tissue and blood to replace the old.

And, most importantly, his soft spongey brain would be grey goo. Without an intact brain, resurrecting Shepard with all his old memories and personality intact just as he was before is effectively impossible, which calls into question the entire Lazarus Project.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

also without an atmosphere like we got due to all that water and oxygen and stuff and the smog we pump up into it entry onto our planet would be less burney.  As I said, entry onto mars or the moon doesn't burn you up.  an uninhabited, uninhabitable world of a smaller size than earth would not have such a thick layer of melt me to death arround the planet that we earthians happily enjoy.

Reentry burn is a product of friction from impacting the molecules in the atmosphere at high speed (or, more specifically, from the compression of the atmosphere in front of the returning object, which causes the compressed gas to rise in temperature). I don't know where you're getting this stored greenhouse heat idea from.

You won't have reentry burn on the moon because the moon has no atmosphere. Mars does have an atmosphere, but it's much thinner than Earth's (approx. 0.007%) so you'll still get some burn. Alchera, where Shepard lands, has an atmospheric pressure of 0.83% Earth's, meaning you'd have nearly the same reentry burn as you would here.

Modifié par JKoopman, 26 mars 2011 - 07:24 .

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

JKoopman wrote...
Shepard is also traveling aboard a starship moving at maximum sublight speeds at the time of his ejection. I'd say that would add a fair bit to his velocity.

You know what else withstands flamethrowers quite well? Solid rock. Yet meteorites burn up easily.

And reentry temperatures are around 3,000 F. I don't know of any flamethrowers that reach or exceed that, so I question your research. Only welding torches reach temperatures in excess of 3,000+, and ME2's Firestorm is clearly not a welding torch.

The ship was not speeding towards the planet. In fact it seemed to be hanging there pretty stationary in space relative to the planet.

Meteorites, as I said, travel between 10km to 70km per SECOND. Orbital space craft by comparison only go about 18km per HOUR.

Shepard was not traveling at either velocity.

So I'll give you that point. But there was no way Shep was going at 18 KM per hour.

And the space shuttle seems to be stationary in space relative to the Earth, but it's actually moving quite fast.

Speaking of fast, you might want to double-check your figures because average orbital velocity around our own planet is between 27,000-29,000km per hour, not 18km per hour. (EDIT: Never mind, you corrected it.)

I can only assume that the Normandy is moving significantly faster than 29,000kph as it's a futuristic military warship built for speed and agility with a mass effect field to reduce it's mass and it's attempting to flee from an attacker; it's not a clunky modern space shuttle simply orbiting a planet at sufficient speed not to fall back into it's gravity well. Let's say the Normandy is traveling at 100,000kph. If Shepard is ejected by the explosion--even in the opposite direction--at a velocity of 100kph (which I feel is being overly generous), that still means he's got a forward velocity of 99,900kph.

Food for thought: modern orbital spacecraft suffer the effects of atmospheric reentry at orbital velocities no differently than a meteorite does and would disintegrate without their heat shielding. If that can happen to an aerodynamic metal shuttle traveling at 29,000kph, what makes you think a fleshy human body traveling at ~99,900kph wouldn't see the same result?

Modifié par JKoopman, 26 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[Whatever42]

Why are you assuming that the Normandy is traveling towards the planet at 100,000 kph?



Jump to about 6:05 into the video. You see that the Normandy is moving right to left across the face of the planet. Not toward the planet.

Jump to about 7:20 into the video. Shepard is falling left to right, in the other direction from his former current momentum. That would indicated a much slower velocity. And since Shepard is moving in the opposite direction along with intact debris, its clear that the Normandy was going no where near 100,000kph in any direction.

Besides, Shepard's body DID survive intact and did not burn up in the atmosphere so clearly he could not have been traveling at a velocity that would overwhelm his suit and shield and burn him up.

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Why are you assuming that the Normandy is traveling towards the planet at 100,000 kph?



Jump to about 6:05 into the video. You see that the Normandy is moving right to left across the face of the planet. Not toward the planet.

Jump to about 7:20 into the video. Shepard is falling left to right, in the other direction from his former current momentum. That would indicated a much slower velocity. And since Shepard is moving in the opposite direction along with intact debris, its clear that the Normandy was going no where near 100,000kph in any direction.

Besides, Shepard's body DID survive intact and did not burn up in the atmosphere so clearly he could not have been traveling at a velocity that would overwhelm his suit and shield and burn him up.

Shepard was traveling in the other direction relative to the Normandy. If he's traveling -100kph the velocity of the
ship, it's going to look like he's traveling away from the ship at 100 kilometers per hour. That doesn't mean his velocity and direction in relation to the planet isn't still +99,900 kilometers per hour.

[Whatever42]

Shepard was going in the other direction relative to the planet. Although, thats really hard to tell for sure because the camera is obviously panning and zooming around. In the shot at 7:00 I don't see any Normandy motion relative to the planet.

However, we're just making these numbers up. We have no idea how fast the Normandy was going, nor do we exactly know its direction. It seems pretty clear that the Normandy is moving across the face of the planet and not toward the planet. And if Shepard was going as fast as you say in a direction other than towards the planet then he wouldn't hit the planet, he would fly off into space. He would be going far, far faster than escape velocity.

But, again, we know that Shepard's body did survive intact. Therefore, Shepard could not have hit the atmosphere with a velocity sufficient for him to burn up. Yes, you can propose scenarios where he did and call it a plot hole but I can propose scenarios where Reapers beamed him up to their space ship. Neither scenario has any objective proof.

All we know is that Shepard died (grey tissue is pretty objective) and that he impacted something hard (all those broken bones) and that he was exposed to vaccuum (recordings tell us that). We did see him falling towards the planet so its pretty likely that he hit it. And we know he didn't burn up so he couldn't have been going at orbital speeds.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 26 mars 2011 - 08:18 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

If Shepard's brain was "goo" then perhaps you are able to rebuild "goo" into a brain. The cells are there they're just dead. Maybe the Lazerus project can actually work on such a microscopic level that it can reinvigorate brain cells? Rebuilding his brain. They constantly use the phrase "Rebuilt you" because that's what they did, they built him again, using all sorts of organic sciences that we only catch a hint of in the opening of the game.


imagine bringing someone back from having thier head caved in and thier body cut up into pieces and smashed with a baseball bat and then burning thier skin off.


And that's why it took two years of superscience to bring him back.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 08:37 .

[JKoopman]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Shepard was going in the other direction relative to the planet. Although, thats really hard to tell for sure because the camera is obviously panning and zooming around. In the shot at 7:00 I don't see any Normandy motion relative to the planet.

However, we're just making these numbers up. We have no idea how fast the Normandy was going, nor do we exactly know its direction. It seems pretty clear that the Normandy is moving across the face of the planet and not toward the planet. And if Shepard was going as fast as you say in a direction other than towards the planet then he wouldn't hit the planet, he would fly off into space. He would be going far, far faster than escape velocity.

But, again, we know that Shepard's body did survive intact. Therefore, Shepard could not have hit the atmosphere with a velocity sufficient for him to burn up. Yes, you can propose scenarios where he did and call it a plot hole but I can propose scenarios where Reapers beamed him up to their space ship. Neither scenario has any objective proof.

All we know is that Shepard died (grey tissue is pretty objective) and that he impacted something hard (all those broken bones) and that he was exposed to vaccuum (recordings tell us that). We did see him falling towards the planet so its pretty likely that he hit it. And we know he didn't burn up so he couldn't have been going at orbital speeds.

Well, then it's confused cinematography. Objects in space don't suddenly change direction or velocity without being acted upon by outside forces, so unless Joker decided to lay on the brakes reverse thrusters in mid-flight prior to Shepard being ejected from the ship he would still be traveling in roughly the same direction and at roughly the same velocity. Any explosion powerful enough to negate Shepard's forward momentum and/or propell him in the opposite direction would be powerful enough to basically "gib" him in the process.

And it's evasive to argue that Shepard clearly survived reentry intact simply because Cerberus was able to somehow recover his corpse mostly intact. That's the point. What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. What we see is Shepard hurtling towards a planet's surface from orbit with the effects of reentry already visible in the firey trail behind him. What we know is that Cerberus were somehow able to restore him apparently without resorting to cloning and that his mind is exactly as it was before. That we're not shown or told how this is possible--and that logic tells us it's impossible--is what makes it a plothole.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

If Shepard's brain was "goo" then perhaps you are able to rebuild "goo" into a brain. The cells are there they're just dead. Maybe the Lazerus project can actually work onsuch a microscopic level that it can reinvigorate brain cells? Rebuilding his brain. They constantly use the phrase "Rebuilt you" because that's what they did, they built him again, using all sorts of organic sciences that we only catch a hint of in the opening of the game.

imagine bringing someone back from having thier head caved in and thier body cut up into pieces and smashed with a baseball bat and then burning thier skin off.

It takes more than just "reinvigorating" the brain cells to restore a person's mind, memories and personality from goo. Every single neuron would have to be put back in exactly the same place, order and condition as before without any apparent guide or frame of reference. It's literally an impossible proposition, and it's simply handwaved away without any exposition as "We did it with science!"

Modifié par JKoopman, 26 mars 2011 - 08:57 .

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...

Well, then it's confused cinematography. Objects in space don't suddenly change direction or velocity without being acted upon by outside forces, so unless Joker decided to lay on the brakes reverse thrusters in mid-flight prior to Shepard being ejected from the ship he would still be traveling in roughly the same direction and at roughly the same velocity. Any explosion powerful enough to negate Shepard's forward momentum and/or propell him in the opposite direction would be powerful enough to basically "gib" him in the process.

And it's evasive to argue that Shepard clearly survived reentry intact simply because Cerberus was able to somehow recover his corpse mostly intact. That's the point. What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. What we see is Shepard hurtling towards a planet's surface from orbit with the effects of reentry already visible in the firey trail behind him. What we know is that Cerberus were somehow able to restore him apparently without resorting to cloning and that his mind is exactly as it was before. That we're not shown or told how this is possible--and that logic tells us it's impossible--is what makes it a plothole.

The Normandy was clearly moving at one point, across the face of the planet. We do not know its velocity, although it does look to be going fairly fast because you can see it moving relative to the planet. Then the Collectors came around for another pass. We do not know what Joker does. We do know that the Collector beam slams into the ship. Then we have several explosions and Shepard is hurled from the Normandy. Then we have an outside shot of the Normandy, where we do not see it moving relative to the planet. It has seemed to have decelerated to some degree. It could be moving in any direction.

We do see Shepard clearly moving towards the planet and the camera pans over and out. Its not confused cinematography, its simply not designed to show us all the relative velocities because its meant to be entertainment. We do not know how fast Shepard is going, though.

Logic does not tell us it impossible. Shepard does appear to be undergoing some sort of re-entry burn. However, we know that going 28000 kph means a burn of about 1600C. If Shepard was going a fraction of that speed then he would suffer a fraction of those temperatures. We know Shepard's shields and armor can withstand certain amount of heat so if his velocity was sufficiently slow then he could have survived entry into the atmosphere.

My whole point was in the absence of contradictory evidence then we must assume he was going at a velocity that permitted him to surive reentry. There is nothing in the scene that tells us what speed he is going. And if to you he appears to be going a certain velocity then the worse we could accuse Bioware of is their graphic artists not paying sufficient attention to physics, instead trying to create a scene that was dramatic and entertaining. Clearly, the scene was written that Shepard survive reentry and it is entirely possible.

[Whatever42]

JKoopman wrote...
It takes more than just "reinvigorating" the brain cells to restore a person's mind, memories and personality from goo. Every single neuron would have to be put back in exactly the same place, order and condition as before without any apparent guide or frame of reference. It's literally an impossible proposition, and it's simply handwaved away without any exposition as "We did it with science!"

We don't know its goo. but we do know that the brain cells would be destroyed and the electo-chemical pattern that creates the personality of Shepard would be gone. We also know that somehow the solution to this problem was bio-synthetic fusion. We also know that Ceberus knew how to fix Shepard at the time they recovered his body because Wilson assured Miranda at the time of recovery that they could fix him.

Again, it is not a literally impossible proposition. It is with our current technology but it is not conceivably impossible. I agree that I haven't heard reference to any technology in the ME universe so at this point, I will agree that there is a plot hole here. I can come up with possible theories, though, and posted one earlier. But this is the only real plot hole.

[Almostfaceman]

JKoopman wrote...

What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. 

Like, um, super zapping through the universe at FTL speeds and changing the mass of an object.  All impossible.

I still say they simply pipe-lined into the adjacent dimension, time lagged and targeted Shepard post-death, took a snapshot of his memories, and plopped them into his healed brain.  

And it's totally plausible that the suit he wore had an air brake system incorporating parchutes or webbing designed for planet re-entry.

[Almostfaceman]

The Mass Effect world is full of impossibilities, it's interesting to see who settles on which one's will bother them the most. Ya know, this planet is currently full of people who believe Christ died and rised again (just to use one religion as an example). So I'm sure that Bioware would assume that people wouldn't have That Hard of a time believing their sci-fi version of the resurrection. It's not like, a foreign concept to story-telling.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. 

Like, um, super zapping through the universe at FTL speeds and changing the mass of an object.  All impossible.

True, But at least Bioware made the effort to come up with an explanation as to how this works, You may or may not like the explanation, Now the Universe is coherent and abides by it's own set of rules, If one dislikes it it's because one does not subscribe to the rules set forth not because something unexplained took place - This is good story telling

I still say they simply pipe-lined into the adjacent dimension, time lagged and targeted Shepard post-death, took a snapshot of his memories, and plopped them into his healed brain.  

And it's totally plausible that the suit he wore had an air brake system incorporating parchutes or webbing designed for planet re-entry.

This is you coming inventing an explanation for something that isn't explained in the game, This makes the universe non coherent - This is bad story telling.

Example : Lord of the rings - Let's say that Aragon is crushed into a bloody pulp in the opening scene and a moment later rises from his bed seemingly alright and all we are told is that Gandalf used a magical doohickey (which cost him a lot of money) to bring him back to life(this doohickey is never seen or refrenced again).

And let's say that the death of Aragon in the beginning is never referenced later in the movie other than some minor jabs between him and Legolas don't you then think the audience watching the movie would go : "what the hell was that all about?" 

[Almostfaceman]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. 

Like, um, super zapping through the universe at FTL speeds and changing the mass of an object.  All impossible.

True, But at least Bioware made the effort to come up with an explanation as to how this works, You may or may not like the explanation, Now the Universe is coherent and abides by it's own set of rules, If one dislikes it it's because one does not subscribe to the rules set forth not because something unexplained took place - This is good story telling

I still say they simply pipe-lined into the adjacent dimension, time lagged and targeted Shepard post-death, took a snapshot of his memories, and plopped them into his healed brain.  

And it's totally plausible that the suit he wore had an air brake system incorporating parchutes or webbing designed for planet re-entry.

This is you coming inventing an explanation for something that isn't explained in the game, This makes the universe non coherent - This is bad story telling.

Example : Lord of the rings - Let's say that Aragon is crushed into a bloody pulp in the opening scene and a moment later rises from his bed seemingly alright and all we are told is that Gandalf used a magical doohickey (which cost him a lot of money) to bring him back to life(this doohickey is never seen or refrenced again).

And let's say that the death of Aragon in the beginning is never referenced later in the movie other than some minor jabs between him and Legolas don't you then think the audience watching the movie would go : "what the hell was that all about?" 

You are taking me waaaayyy too seriously - but I own that since piping humor through text is problematic at best.

The codex and Mass Effect universe are also problematic at best.  For example, where is the codex that explains how I can carry 150 items around with me into the field?  That's just as impossible as resurrecting someone.  I'd need the magical "bag of holding" from the Dungeons and Dragons universe.  See what I mean?  YOU are picking what is and is not going to bother you in the story.

It's a video game.  I say go with it.  It's sci fi.  It doesn't take me out of the story any more than the Babylon 5 advanced space alien resurrecting Bruce Boxlietner after a nuke blast.

[Xeranx]

[quote]Almostfaceman wrote...

This is you coming inventing an explanation for something that isn't explained in the game, This makes the universe non coherent - This is bad story telling.

Example : Lord of the rings - Let's say that Aragon is crushed into a bloody pulp in the opening scene and a moment later rises from his bed seemingly alright and all we are told is that Gandalf used a magical doohickey (which cost him a lot of money) to bring him back to life(this doohickey is never seen or refrenced again).

And let's say that the death of Aragon in the beginning is never referenced later in the movie other than some minor jabs between him and Legolas don't you then think the audience watching the movie would go : "what the hell was that all about?" [/quote]

You are taking me waaaayyy too seriously - but I own that since piping humor through text is problematic at best.

The codex and Mass Effect universe are also problematic at best.  For example, where is the codex that explains how I can carry 150 items around with me into the field?  That's just as impossible as resurrecting someone.  I'd need the magical "bag of holding" from the Dungeons and Dragons universe.  See what I mean?  YOU are picking what is and is not going to bother you in the story.

It's a video game.  I say go with it.  It's sci fi.  It doesn't take me out of the story any more than the Babylon 5 advanced space alien resurrecting Bruce Boxlietner after a nuke blast.

[/quote]

I'm sorry, but this is getting non-sensical to the point of being utterly ridiculous if it's not already.  The bag of holding, as I understand it, allows the character to not be bogged by weight of whatever is being carried.  That's in-world.  That it gives you enough space to carry extra items beyond what is already in your inventory is simply ease of use through a mechanic in the game.  What we can see on a character in DnD is what is on them: sword, staff, potions, gold, etc.  It completely flies in the face of believability if for some reason you're told that someone can carry up to or exceeding 150 items.  It's difficult as it is to carry 150 items on a wagon depending on what the items are.  So please stop trying to use inventory count as a point of reference in a way to rebut the science that someone tried to explain at least.

[Almostfaceman]

Xeranx wrote...

I'm sorry, but this is getting non-sensical to the point of being utterly ridiculous if it's not already.  The bag of holding, as I understand it, allows the character to not be bogged by weight of whatever is being carried.  That's in-world.  That it gives you enough space to carry extra items beyond what is already in your inventory is simply ease of use through a mechanic in the game.  What we can see on a character in DnD is what is on them: sword, staff, potions, gold, etc.  It completely flies in the face of believability if for some reason you're told that someone can carry up to or exceeding 150 items.  It's difficult as it is to carry 150 items on a wagon depending on what the items are.  So please stop trying to use inventory count as a point of reference in a way to rebut the science that someone tried to explain at least.

I don't really have a clue as to what you're complaining about - take that for what it's worth.

But if you want another example - where in the codex does it explain how if a ship moving at faster than light runs into a particle of dust - how that doesn't destroy the ship.  There isn't anything.  It's science fiction.

Or how a device like, say a rifle, gets rendering into "omni gel".

Or how does Medi Gel work on Legion?

Where's the codex that describes how Shiala lived being absorbed by the Thorian then cloned?  

All this stuff pops out at ya - it's a video game.

You see, I can go on and on.  That's my point.  These are all miracles, and people are picking which miracle to be picky about.  That's all my point is.  150 items in inventory was just an example, don't get your panties in a knot.  

Modifié par Almostfaceman, 26 mars 2011 - 08:26 .

[Xeranx]

Almostfaceman wrote...

I don't really have a clue as to what you're complaining about - take that for what it's worth.

But if you want another example - where in the codex does it explain how if a ship moving at faster than light runs into a particle of dust - how that doesn't destroy the ship.  There isn't anything.  It's science fiction.

Or how a device like, say a rifle, gets rendering into "omni gel".

Or how does Medi Gel work on Legion?

Where's the codex that describes how Shiala lived being absorbed by the Thorian then cloned?  

All this stuff pops out at ya - it's a video game.

You see, I can go on and on.  That's my point.  These are all miracles, and people are picking which miracle to be picky about.  That's all my point is.  150 items in inventory was just an example, don't get your panties in a knot.  

I guess you do know what my complaint was about considering your last line.  150 items in an inventory is a gameplay mechanic versus Medi Gel working on Legion since, as stated in LOTSB, omni-gel isn't in use any more.  Using medi-gel on Legion is trying to bridge a gameplay mechanic with in-world reality.  It doesn't work.  

In ME (since you're referencing 150 item inventory limit and that's the only ME game that has it) we know that Shepard and Co had on them four weapons that they can use at any time plus whatever else they brought to the table (biotics/tech), and grenades for Shepard.  So long as you, the player, didn't access the inventory and switch out weapons or mods the characters didn't have access to them.  So a very good theory is regardless of what game mechanic exists the characters in the game aren't privy to that.

To make my point clearer: trying to equate the 150 count inventory to anything in story progression to bolster your stance is disingenuous.  

[Almostfaceman]

Xeranx wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

I don't really have a clue as to what you're complaining about - take that for what it's worth.

But if you want another example - where in the codex does it explain how if a ship moving at faster than light runs into a particle of dust - how that doesn't destroy the ship.  There isn't anything.  It's science fiction.

Or how a device like, say a rifle, gets rendering into "omni gel".

Or how does Medi Gel work on Legion?

Where's the codex that describes how Shiala lived being absorbed by the Thorian then cloned?  

All this stuff pops out at ya - it's a video game.

You see, I can go on and on.  That's my point.  These are all miracles, and people are picking which miracle to be picky about.  That's all my point is.  150 items in inventory was just an example, don't get your panties in a knot.  

I guess you do know what my complaint was about considering your last line.  150 items in an inventory is a gameplay mechanic versus Medi Gel working on Legion since, as stated in LOTSB, omni-gel isn't in use any more.  Using medi-gel on Legion is trying to bridge a gameplay mechanic with in-world reality.  It doesn't work.  

In ME (since you're referencing 150 item inventory limit and that's the only ME game that has it) we know that Shepard and Co had on them four weapons that they can use at any time plus whatever else they brought to the table (biotics/tech), and grenades for Shepard.  So long as you, the player, didn't access the inventory and switch out weapons or mods the characters didn't have access to them.  So a very good theory is regardless of what game mechanic exists the characters in the game aren't privy to that.

To make my point clearer: trying to equate the 150 count inventory to anything in story progression to bolster your stance is disingenuous.  

I don't agree.  I'm trying to immerse myself into the story.  You may say that the Resurrection of Shepard takes you out of the story.  I say the 150 items takes me out of the story.  Now you can blah blah blah about game mechanics all you want - it still doesn't invalidate my point.  My point is, different strokes for different folks.

So, when the 150 items took me out of the immersion, I made a choice to "make up in my head" an in-universe reason for it to be possible.  Then I re-immersed myself (is that a word? lol).

The same with the Resurrection.  It started to take me out of the story.  Then I listened more to the in-game explanation and added a bit of my own "game logic" and was able to sink back into the ME universe.

I apologize if I've made this point muddier than it had to be - I'm tryin to be clear'. 

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

JKoopman wrote...


It takes more than just "reinvigorating" the brain cells to restore a person's mind, memories and personality from goo. Every single neuron would have to be put back in exactly the same place, order and condition as before without any apparent guide or frame of reference. It's literally an impossible proposition, and it's simply handwaved away without any exposition as "We did it with science!"

Impossible Science?  Sounds like Science fiction to me!!


Here's something: dealing with cells on such a level there is a way to trace where they were bonded and reattach those bonds.  Cellular markings, a memory of the cell makeup before seperation.  Within this super-future world where you can travel between galaxies within moments and move stuff with your mind Cerberus has developed technology that can deal with cells on such a microscopic level that they can identify and repair physical problems molecule by molecule.  (chemicals, electrical equipment, omnigel, whatever)

In real life it's already possible to bring someone back to life who's brain cells have been dead for upwards of half an hour, now lets advance that technology by a century and throw in some alien medical breakthroughs and basically just move the needle forward on this modern advancement in medical science.

Brain Cells can be reinvigorated under certain circumstances, in the future we may be able to bring a brain back to life that has been dead for an even longer time, we may be able to do so much with the human body in the future that death may carry no meaning provided the body can be recovered.  Mass Effect is also a futuristic tale.


Let's say they have developed a chemical solution that, is made up of incredibly rare materials and is expensive to produce, will stimulate cells of a brain or various parts of the body to reform previously held bonds and basically revert a brain from goo into a brain again.  Also lets assume that Shepard was the first test subject and that there isn't enough of the stuff in Cerberus storage to do this a second time.  Well....then I guess you get to have a Mass Effect 2.

science fiction!

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 09:40 .

[JKoopman]

Inventory is not a story mechanic. It's never used in-story. Being able to carry 150 items is purely a gameplay mechanic, and therefor it falls into gameplay/story segregation. Attempting to shoehorn it into the story and using it as an example of a plothole is like saying that Shepard losing the ability to crouch between ME1 and ME2 is a story inconsistency.

If being able to carry 150 items in your out-of-story inventory is enough to shatter your immersion, then I question how you're able to play through ME2 at all without your head imploding from all the inconsistencies.

Almostfaceman wrote...

Xeranx wrote...

I'm sorry, but this is getting non-sensical to the point of being utterly ridiculous if it's not already.  The bag of holding, as I understand it, allows the character to not be bogged by weight of whatever is being carried.  That's in-world.  That it gives you enough space to carry extra items beyond what is already in your inventory is simply ease of use through a mechanic in the game.  What we can see on a character in DnD is what is on them: sword, staff, potions, gold, etc.  It completely flies in the face of believability if for some reason you're told that someone can carry up to or exceeding 150 items.  It's difficult as it is to carry 150 items on a wagon depending on what the items are.  So please stop trying to use inventory count as a point of reference in a way to rebut the science that someone tried to explain at least.

I don't really have a clue as to what you're complaining about - take that for what it's worth.

But if you want another example - where in the codex does it explain how if a ship moving at faster than light runs into a particle of dust - how that doesn't destroy the ship.  There isn't anything.  It's science fiction.

Kinetic barriers?

Almostfaceman wrote...

Or how a device like, say a rifle, gets rendering into "omni gel".

Nanomachines that breakdown and recycle material into it's constituent compounds and can be instructed via omni-tool to reorder those raw materials to fabricate other items based on stored schematics. I believe that was the way they were explained in ME1.

Almostfaceman wrote...

Or how does Medi Gel work on Legion?

It shouldn't. It's a known inconsistency that Smudboy even mentions in one of his videos.

Almostfaceman wrote...

Where's the codex that describes how Shiala lived being absorbed by the Thorian then cloned?

She wasn't "absorbed". She was contained in a pod, where her DNA was sampled and her mind interfaced to produce sentient clone constructs that served the Thorian.

Almostfaceman wrote...

All this stuff pops out at ya - it's a video game.

You see, I can go on and on.  That's my point.  These are all miracles, and people are picking which miracle to be picky about.  That's all my point is.  150 items in inventory was just an example, don't get your panties in a knot.  

That there are many inconsistencies and plotholes does nothing to negate any singular inconsistency or plothole. 20 wrongs don't make a right.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


It takes more than just "reinvigorating" the brain cells to restore a person's mind, memories and personality from goo. Every single neuron would have to be put back in exactly the same place, order and condition as before without any apparent guide or frame of reference. It's literally an impossible proposition, and it's simply handwaved away without any exposition as "We did it with science!"

Impossible Science?  Sounds like Science fiction to me!!

Not impossible science. Just flat-out biologically impossible, and with no explanation how 4 billion credits and 2 years somehow made it possible. In other words: plothole.

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

In real life it's already possible to bring someone back to life who's brain cells have been dead for upwards of half an hour, now lets advance that technology by a century and throw in some alien medical breakthroughs and basically just move the needle forward on this modern advancement in medical science.

Lack of oxygen to the brain for more than 5 minutes results in severe braindamage. In other words, even if a person is successfully revived after 30+ minutes of being braindead, they're going to be severely mentally retarded and most definitely not the same person they were before. And that's with intact brains. The Lazarus Project not only somehow restored Shepard's mind exactly as it was before with no traces of brain damage after two years of being clinically dead but did so with what amounts to a scrambled brain slurry. And again, with no explanation provided for how this was somehow made possible in the Mass Effect universe save for "We did it with science! (and 4 billion credits)" And then it's immediately handwaved away and never mentioned again for the entirety of the game.

Modifié par JKoopman, 26 mars 2011 - 10:41 .

[squee913]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

What the eyes see doesn't add up with what the brain knows, causing a disconnect. 

Like, um, super zapping through the universe at FTL speeds and changing the mass of an object.  All impossible.

True, But at least Bioware made the effort to come up with an explanation as to how this works, You may or may not like the explanation, Now the Universe is coherent and abides by it's own set of rules, If one dislikes it it's because one does not subscribe to the rules set forth not because something unexplained took place - This is good story telling

I still say they simply pipe-lined into the adjacent dimension, time lagged and targeted Shepard post-death, took a snapshot of his memories, and plopped them into his healed brain.  

And it's totally plausible that the suit he wore had an air brake system incorporating parchutes or webbing designed for planet re-entry.

This is you coming inventing an explanation for something that isn't explained in the game, This makes the universe non coherent - This is bad story telling.

Example : Lord of the rings - Let's say that Aragon is crushed into a bloody pulp in the opening scene and a moment later rises from his bed seemingly alright and all we are told is that Gandalf used a magical doohickey (which cost him a lot of money) to bring him back to life(this doohickey is never seen or refrenced again).

And let's say that the death of Aragon in the beginning is never referenced later in the movie other than some minor jabs between him and Legolas don't you then think the audience watching the movie would go : "what the hell was that all about?" 

Example: Lord of the rings- Let's say that GaNdolf is killed by a Balrog (and yes he even admits he died) half way through a story (mass effect 2 is the 2nd chapter of a 3 chapter story, so it's silly to say Shepard died at the beginning of the story) and a few days later appears out of no where seemingly alright and all we are told is that he has been sent back until his work is finished. That's it. No soul searching of any length, no real revelation about that character, and is never referenced again for the rest of the story except for the title change from Grey to white.

Your right, that would make a horrible story and no one would ever do such a thing. Readers everywhere would be outraged and.... oh wait....
 

Modifié par squee913, 26 mars 2011 - 10:52 .

[squee913]

JKoopman wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

JKoopman wrote...


It takes more than just "reinvigorating" the brain cells to restore a person's mind, memories and personality from goo. Every single neuron would have to be put back in exactly the same place, order and condition as before without any apparent guide or frame of reference. It's literally an impossible proposition, and it's simply handwaved away without any exposition as "We did it with science!"

Impossible Science?  Sounds like Science fiction to me!!

Not impossible science. Just flat-out biologically impossible, and with no explanation how 4 billion credits and 2 years somehow made it possible. In other words: plothole.

So are you telling me that you can explain to me how electricity causes element zero to change the mass of an object? When you show me the schematics for that, I will show you the schematics for how they resurrected Shepard. Again Codex entries only tell you the results, not the how. Where as the entire game showed the results of the Lazarus project since none of those events would have happens the way they did with out Shepard.

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

Example: Lord of the rings- Let's say that GaNdolf is killed by a Balrog (and yes he even admits he died) half way through a story (mass effect 2 is the 2nd chapter of a 3 chapter story, so it's silly to say Shepard died at the beginning of the story) and a few days later appears out of no where seemingly alright and all we are told is that he has been sent back until his work is finished. That's it. No soul searching of any length, no real revelation about that character, and is never referenced again for the rest of the story except for the title change from Grey to white.

Your right, that would make a horrible story and no one would ever do such a thing. Readers everywhere would be outraged and.... oh wait....
 

Actually, in my copy of The Two Towers, Gangalf goes into some detail about what befell him on pages 490-491.  His return is also referenced  several times throughout the remainder of the trilogy (Here's hoping Shep gets an "I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked  words with a serving-man till the lightning falls" line for Udina)

Though I do admit that it does make more sense after reading the appendices to the books to gain a greater understanding of the Valar, the Maiar, the Istari, and their roles in Middle Earth.  Now if you could just point me to the Mass Effect Appendix...

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

They said they rebuilt him, perhaps that was a literal explanation. Yeah messing around with cells and **** is impossible nowadays but who's to say there isn't some way to divulge a "blueprint" from the dna. I mean that's more or less how the body forms during birth. It would be cool if they explain it a little more in the sequel, maybe a scene where you're talking to mordin and he mentions finding information on your resurrection in cerberus data files and explains some of it.

Reguarding the state of shepard's body, it's still very possible that he landed intact. We find Shepard's helmet placed right side up near the crash site. I don't think it naturally landed that way. It had to have been placed there, meaning we dont know how close to the actual crash site shepard landed. Perhaps he landed somewhere where he wouldn't have just been a cartoon splat. (People don't just turn into cartoon splats, there are any number of ways shepard could have landed without getting his brain completely splatted.)

Things we know:
His body was recoverable
Cerberus rebuilt him

Therefor the survival method falls within these two cases. Meaning he landed in a way that allowed them to recover his body. Also if you notice, nothing else at the normandy crash site is burned upon re-entry, in fact, throughout both games you enter and leave atmospheres without sustaining burns to your ship, the mako, or the normandy's small space craft you use to land sometimes. Shepard's helmet is not burned when you find it, and Legion's armor is not burned or turned to molecular ash either. This implies that the planet's atmosphere did not burn up whatever fell onto it, either due to it's atmosphere, kinetic mass effect fields, or just the materiel the armor is built out of is resilient enough to resist heat. Either of these three or a combination is a suitable explanation for how the ship managed to land and still have it's paint job intact.

So using these other examples from within the game world we can draw more conclusions...The planet did not incinerate shepard upon re-entry due to either it's own inability to do so or futuristic technology that is used throughout the two games in other situations. Also we can infer that Shepard possibly landed farther away from where his helmet is found, possibly in a snow drift, and even if he didn't it's possible his body was mostly intact during landing due to any number of ways he could have landed. If we want to assume shepard's body was found near where his helmet was found in the Normandy crash site, we can say that he landed on an incline and his body rolled down into the area where the rest of the normandy was found. (good thing most of the ship landed in the same spot, how entirely realistic.)

Without making anything up you can use existing logic to infer how his body survived the fall.


So if his body was not completely turned into red goo like in cartoons then that means it is now more likely that cerberus was able to rebuild him using the machines ffrom the opening. What do we see from the opening? We see injections, cybernetics, all sorts of stuff happening to his cells. Therefor this implies they did science to shepard on nanoscopic level. There's alot we dont know about brain cells that we are slowly learning. Those experiments with bringing the brain back to life after it's been dead for 15 minutes have completely re-written the book on the field of brain science. For all we know it's theoretically possible to grow new brain-cells that fully copy the remnants of the existing dead braincells (using whatever cellular technology cerberus could have used). Cerberus says they rebuilt shepard, which infers they built him again, to be the same person he was. Using existing cellular blueprints they could have "rebuilt" him by cell using that machine from the beginning of the game.

Even within modern science things like memories and individual thought are still such a mystery. We don't know exactly how brain cells work, we do know that they are vital. There's theories about replacing brain cells with empty cells nowadays. There isn't enough evidence to state that memory and thought ceases to exist without oxygen to the brain. In a computer data is allocated to memory, and you use pointers to access that data. When you lose a pointer it doesn't erase that data, it just means you lose your ability to access it. Making statements on how impossible brain surgery is within this future.....we dont yet know what is or is not fully possible with the human brain. While it's very small, there is is that small amount of reason for how they brought shepard back in the game. It's not a codex entry or a medical explanation but there is enough information to infer from.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 26 mars 2011 - 11:21 .

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...

So are you telling me that you can explain to me how electricity causes element zero to change the mass of an object? When you show me the schematics for that, I will show you the schematics for how they resurrected Shepard. Again Codex entries only tell you the results, not the how. Where as the entire game showed the results of the Lazarus project since none of those events would have happens the way they did with out Shepard.

But we can point to codex entries about eezo, Mass Effect fields, and biotics.  Even if it's "space magic" it's established space magic.  This is how the ME universe works.  It's in the game's title!  Where's the codex entry for ressurection technology?  Where's the entry on medical science that talks about tissue revivification?  Brain damage reversal?  Synthetic fusion?  We're not asking for a good explanation.  We're asking for an explanation that's as good as what we got for eezo.  Is that seriously asking a lot?

Modifié par iakus, 26 mars 2011 - 11:21 .