1198 réponses à ce sujet

[Tamahome560]

Really good video. Looking forward to part 2!

Also about Shepard's resurrection. If people who lived 300 years ago would be able to see technology today I bet their first reaction would be like: Impossible! What sorcery is this!? And now we are saying that resurrecting a person is impossible as science does not allow it. Well a lot of science is still theoretical and we have not yet discovered everything. Just because something is impossible to do today does not mean it won't be possible in the future.

[JayhartRIC]

(removed by me)

Modifié par JayhartRIC, 08 mars 2011 - 09:02 .

[Mynoot]

I've seen the first video of smudboy's ME2 analysis and I fully agree with it. You see the falacies in the story from the start.

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

You haven't said how it isn't living within the rules. The log entries on the station explain what they did with a fair bit of techno-babble. Sure, it doesn't really explain it but neither does the codex entry on the quantum entanglement communicator. There are several fundemental problems with using quantum entanglement as FTL communication (not simply technical hurdles) that they don't even address. They just say they did it.

Space Opera usually works this way.

"In 2148, prospectors on Mars discovered remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization, the mysterious artifacts discovered revealed breakthrough technologies assisting humanity's expansion into the stars. The basis for the technology was a force that dominates space and time itself. We called it the greatest discovery in human history. The races across the galaxy called it... MASS EFFECT.[/b] "

It's been made clear that all advanced technology of every existing race has been based on "Prothean" technology.  We have seen little to nothing how this affects medicine, tissue preservation, or anything even remotely connected to anything I can think of that's connected to ressurection technology.

Thisis not to say that human medical technology has stagnated.  But what we have sen of futuristic medicine seems limited to more advanced gene therapies, longer lifespans, and more recently, the ability to produce viable biotics.  In fact, I don't even recall seeing any examples of large scale use of cybernetics in the game, aside from those of biotics to control their abilities.  Not that it couldn't exist, but we simply don't see them.  Anywhere.  Not before Shepard gets turned into this remorseless cybernetic killing machine.

Is it any wonder that, upon learning of the Lazarus Project, some people go "Where the frak did they pull that out of?"

I do not know much about quantum entanglement outside of science fiction novels.  But you have to admit, it plays a considerably less important part of ME 2 then the Cure for Death.  Honestly, I thought of it as little more than a more advanced comm buoy.  We were just seeing Shep's "reports" from TIM's office's perspective rather than the Normandy.

[JKoopman]

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

There's no rule that says you can't kill off the main character at the start of a story.

Completely missing the point. Smudboy wasn't arguing that there's some unwritten rule that says you can't do that. He was arguing that you don't do that if you want to tell a good story. [/quote]

Complete nonsense. There is no single guide to writing a good story. Good stories can take many forms. I thought opening with Shepard's demise was a great plot device and very entertaining.[/quote]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree that ME2 had a "good story" and that opening with and then subsequently hand-waving away the protagonist's demise was a "great plot device."

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Furthermore, his complaint stems from the fact that Shepard is immediately killed off at the beginning of the story only to be brought back less than 2 minutes of game-time later and have his death and resurrection never be explored again. What was the point? What did Shepard's death and resurrection add to the story? It would've played out the same if Shepard had survived the battle and was simply found floating in cryo-suspension after being declared MIA. The whole plot point was needless and wasted.
[/quote]

What a seriously odd thing to say. So they don't kill Shepard again and bring him back. So what?  Few stories I've read have characters killed and brought back to life again. It's quite possible to tell the rest of the story quite well without killing and ressurecting Shepard again.

And it wasn't wasted. The plot called for Shepard to parallel the paragon path in ME1 with a renegade path with Cerberus in ME2. I think that's a clever bit of story telling. For that to occur, something dramatic has to happen.[/quote]

I wasn't suggesting that BioWare kill Shepard off and bring him back again, so I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I was suggesting that, if you're going to kill off the protagonist of your story and then bring him back from the grave, it should be a bigger plot point than a 2-minute footnote that's hand-waved away with "It's science!" and then never explored or even mentioned again.

And, again, the "plot" of Shepard working for the "Renegade faction" could just as easily been accomplished had Shepard simply been found by Cerberus floating in cryo-sleep in an escape pod. Of what plot significance was Shepard's actual death and resurrection to the overall plot of ME2? None. Two minutes after the fact, it's completely undone (without even much in the way of an explaination) and then never explored and hardly even referrenced again for the rest of the story. It was a complete waste of what should've been a major plot point.

It seems to me like BioWare simply wanted Shepard to parallel Jesus Christ or something, so they decided to throw a completely random and pointless "death and resurrection" scene in there and then just moved on with the rest of the story like it never even happened.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

This is one of the most common arguments used in fiction debates, and the fact that the author uses it kind of unintentionally says a bit about him. Yes, Science Fiction is fiction and part of fiction means things that are impossible can be made possible. However, in Science Fiction, the science part also needs to be accounted for or else it just becomes futuristic fantasy.

Mass Effect fields and biotics are explained in the Mass Effect universe via the proerties of the fictional Element Zero, which has a defined set of rules and principles governing it. Therefor, everything that Element Zero allows for--like Mass Effect fields, FTL travel, biotics, etc--can be rationally explained away as a bi-product of this fictional element and it's defined properties. The Lazarus Project has no explaination in Element Zero. It's wholely independant of Element Zero and therefor needs it's own independant explaination, of which there is none. So the only recourse then is, a wizard did it. It's as unbelievable in the context of the Mass Effect universe as if Shepard spontaneously morphed into a giant fire-breathing dragon (which, again, there's no story rule that says that couldn't happen, but it wouldn't be good writing for him to do so).
[/quote]
A science fiction story has to live within the rules it sets for itself. This is a rule repeated by great science fiction writers such as Orson Scott Card. Beyond that you can set any rules you like. Mass effect fields are magic. Quantum entanglement communication is magic. Neither are remotely possible in the universe we understand today.

How Shepard's body survived enough to rebuild is a bit of a head-scratcher, I admit. And it is a plot hole. However, this is a video game, not a novel, so I don't expect every plot turn to be fully explained and I just let it go.[/quote]

That's just it, though. The Lazarus Project doesn't "live within the rules [Mass Effect] sets for itself". It's independant of the only "magic" known to exist in that universe: Element Zero. In ME1, BioWare established a universe with the same laws and principles as our own save for the properties and abilities of this "magical" mass-altering element. That's the foundation our [suspension of dis]belief is built on. The Lazarus Project has no explaination in Element Zero, and no other explaination is offered. One could've easily been created had the LP been described as a cloning process or had Shepard's body been recovered mostly intact, but it's not; they went out of their way to reinforce that Shepard was NOT a clone--he was in fact the "original" Shepard restored exactly as he was before--and we're told that Shepard both impacted the surface of a planet from orbit and was "nothing but meat and tubes" when Cerberus recovered his remains.

For all intents and purposes, it's simply actual magic and we're just expected to accept it.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Suspension of disbelieve is a two-way street. Readers/players need to be able to suspend their disblief in a fictional universe, but the writer also needs to give them a foundation of belief on which to suspend it. You can't just have impossible occurances with no explaination whatsoever and expect people to buy it, or else you have the aforementioned Shepard morphing into a fire-breathing dragon to save the day.

[/quote]
Again, a science fiction story has to live within the rules that it sets for itself. If star trek says they have magical warp speed then it has magical warp speed. There is no science explanation for warp speed or any FTL travel at all. We make it up completely out of thin air because an SF story without FTL would keep things pretty limited.

Shepard was brought back to life with science. It stays within the rules it sets for itself. It's legit. Full stop.[/quote]

Okay, let's roll with your Star Trek comparison. Warp Speed is "magic", but it's established magic. Ships can travel at Warp Speed because it's established from the beginning that, in the Star Trek universe, Warp Speed is possible.

Now let's say there's an episode where Kirk gets shot in the face with a Romulan Disruptor and disintegrated, then two minutes later we see him laying on Dr. McCoy's operating table fully restored while McCoy waves a little sciencey doodad over him and says "There. All better." without even so much as an oversimplified analogy about putting too much air in a balloon. Something tells me Star Trek fans would have a bit of a problem with that, since it completely defies the known conventions of the Star Trek universe where it's known that people who get disintegrated by Romulan Disruptors don't simply get brought back to life. And what's more, if the rest of that episode went on without Kirk's death and resurrection being relevant to the overall plot or even mentioned again, it would likely leave most fans scratching their heads as to why exactly it was even done.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Again, he COMPLETELY misses the point. Smudboy wasn't complaining that Shepard's resurrection wasn't spiritual in nature. He was complaining that there was absolutely no metaphysical or spiritual exploration involved with Shepard having been brought back from the dead. This should've been a HUGE plot point. How often do people get brought back from the grave, after all? There should've been tons of soul-searching and metaphysical exploration involved dealing with what it means to be alive and whether Shepard is still himself (ie: whether a "clone" has a soul). As others have mentioned, Shepard experienced death and yet he doesn't have so much as a nightmare about dying in the cold vacuum of space? It's like it never even happened, which goes back to point #1 about not killing off the protagonist at the beginning of a story just to bring him back again 2 minutes later. In effect, what should've been a huge plot point was rendered totally pointless.

[/quote]

Again. Video game. Babylon 5 had whole episodes to tell that story. Thisis a video game. They didn't fully explore lots of developments in the story. Because its a video game. They don't have 10 hours of television to explore it. They don't have a hundred pages to delve into it. Because its a video game.[/quote]

You're right. They didn't have 10 hours of television. They had 22+ hours of gameplay. You're telling me they couldn't squeeze one little mission involving Shepard's internal struggles into the game--or even a few lines of dialog with Kelly Chambers relating to nightmares involving his death or posing metaphyiscal questions about the nature of his new life--but there was enough time to throw in 22 character missions and a heaping pile of unrelated side-missions to go with them? Heck, take out the mission where Shepard follows a YMIR mech through a canyon to collect resources or the one where Shepard stops a random ship from crashing into a planet and you've now got more than enough "time" to explore the psychological ramifications of Shepard's death and resurrection. That's assuming that there wasn't enough time to add it in addition, which I don't believe.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Okay. Let's use the Hannibal comparison. Yes, Hannibal terrorized the Roman Empire (with the help of his formidable army, but moving on...) BUT if after Hannibal died the Carthaginians were oftered the choice of either bringing JUST Hannibal back or having an army of 50,000 soldiers at the ready, which do you think they'd choose? Keep in mind that Hannibal AND the army isn't an option. Quite simply, Hannibal on his own against the Roman Empire isn't going to accomplish anything without those 50,000 men behind him, whereas those 50,000 men without Hannibal are still a force to be reckoned with.

[/quote]

Exaggarate much? First, 4 billion credits. The Normany cost 120 billion credits. They could not raise 50,000 men. They could raise perhaps a few hundred.

And what would an army do? As Ashley pointed out in ME1, infantry is useless in this upcoming war. Leaders are not. Your argument is totally empty. Don't die on this hill.[/quote]

I'm not saying they could necessarilly raise 50,000 men in ME2. 50,000 men was an army of average size in 200BCE Carthage. But if Cerberus paid each mercenary 500,000 credits apiece out of the 4 billion they allocated for Shepard (which would seem to be a "large personal sum" by ME standards), they'd have an army 8,000 men strong not even including their own sizable group of military operatives.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

First of all, that's pure conjecture. We're given nothing in the game that suggests that Cerberus began the
Lazarus Project prior to Shepard's demise regardless of how "likely" the author believes that to be, nor do we know how much of the 2 years that Shepard was dead wasn't spent developing the technology to do so.

[/quote]

Cerberus had the technology before retrieving Shepard. You can tell from the logs that they get started right away after they get the body.[/quote]

Actually, no, they didn't. I just replayed the ME2 intro sequence to be sure and all of Miranda's log entries are as follows:

"Test subject has been recovered, but the damage is far worse than we initially feared. In addition to the expected burns and internal injuries from the explosion, subject has suffered significant cellular breakdown due to long-term exposure to vacuum and sub-zero temperatures. Despite the extent of the physical trauma, Wilson assures me subject is salvagable. The Lazarus Project will proceed as planned."

"Progress is slow but subject shows signs of recovery. Major organs are again functional and there are signs of rudimentary neurological activity. In an effort to accelerate the process, weve moved from simple organic reconstruction of the subject to bio-synthetic fusion. Initial results show promise."

"Physical reconstruction of subject is complete, but we still need to evaluate all mental and neurological functions. Our orders were clear: make Commander Shepard who he was before the explosion. The same mind, the same morals, the same personality. If we alter his identity in any way--if he's somehow not the man he used to be--the Lazarus Project will have failed. I refuse to let that happen."

Wilson's log entries are all about what a b*tch Miranda is, how the project is over budget and how he isn't getting paid enough money.

None of that states in any definitive way that either the Lazarus Project existed or that Cerberus was capable of resurrecting a human prior to Shepard's death and recovery, nor does it indicate that reconstruction began immediately upon recovery of Shepard's remains. Without a time table, for all we know Shepard's remains were sitting in cold storage for a year before any real work began.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Secondly, if you're only excuse is "Well, we've gotta test it on someone," wouldn't it make more sense NOT to use that technology on the individual who has personally slaughtered countless Cerberus operatives, dismantled numerous Cerberus operations, has likely had their past personally affected in a negative way by Cerberus and thus has cause to want it's destruction AND therefor is most likely to balk at working with you?

[/quote]

Did you not play ME2? You think TIM cared about his operatives? TIM is the ultimate pragmatist. He thought returning Shepard to lead the fight against the Reapers was a good thing, whether or not he worked for Cerbuerus.[/quote]

You seem to be confusing pragmatism with sadism or sociopathy. Being pragmatic does not equate to being needlessly wasteful. In both Ascension and Retribution, the Illusive Man is shown to value his prized operatives and rewards good work and loyalty.

And even if the Illusive Man was a sadistic bastard who didn't care one whit for those in his service, he's not stupid. Even if he didn't care about all the Cerberus operatives that Shepard eliminated, he'd at least care about all the Cerberus operations that Shepard exposed or shut down. And even if he didn't care about that, he'd at least care about the fact that Shepard has a vested interest in not only Cerberus' destruction, but in the death of the Illusive Man himself. It's not very wise to spend 4 billion credits resurrecting a person who's as likely to put a bullet through your head as help you, nor to give said person a 120 billion credit warship and then cut them loose. That'd be like Winston Churchill attempting to eliminate Stalin by resurrecting Hitler and giving him command of the most advanced warship in the British Royal Navy. If TIM trully is a pragmatist, then Shepard's possible probable betrayal should be all the more obvious to him.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Yes, we all understand that Shepard working with Cerberus is integral to the plot. It's a bad plot. That's Smudboy's point. The player should never have been forced--protests or not--to work with an organization that is so contrary to his nature. The fact that Shepard seems so impotent before the Illusive Man that the best he can muster in protest is an "OK, but I don't wanna!" and ocassionally mutter a few grumbling threats is just rubbing salt in the proverbial wound.

[/quote]
So my Shepard could refuse to work with the council in ME1? All I can do is petulantaly hang up on them? The plot in ME2 is a parrallel to ME1. In ME1, we work for the paragon faction. Renegades whine, Paragons love it. InME2, we work for the renegade faction. Renegades love it, Paragons whine. Its a story on rails, total freedom was never an option.[/quote]

First of all, Shepard doesn't really have a choice in ME1. He's established as an Alliance soldier. The Alliance tells him to jump, he's obligated to say "How high?" The Alliance decides to put him forward as a candidate for the Spectres, not only is that an extreme honor but it's also not really his place to decline. Shepard does have a choice with Cerberus; we're just never allowed to make it. He should be able to simply walk away as he's under no obligation to serve them and never agreed to be bound by their authority. Furthermore, the Council can't really be considered "The Paragon Faction" as there's as much Renegade in there as there is Paragon; or have you forgetting the turian Councilor, and the salarian's Genephage and the Council's genocide of the Rachni?

Secondly, I don't really know of anyone who complained about being "railroaded" into the Spectres in ME1, so that would seem to be a straw man.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

The Alliance and, to a lesser extent, the Council only refused to aid Shepard because Shepard was working with Cerberus! If he wanted their support, all he had to do was leave Cerberus, but that option is never available to the player. In other words, it was completely contrived. Personally, I would've loved to tell the Illusive Man to sit on it and taken my shiny new Normandy SR-2 back to the Alliance, but I couldn't do that because "Reports are that you're working with Cerberus. What the hell are you doing out there, Shepard?" and my only option was to defend Cerberus and their methods. WTF!?

[/quote]
Nonsense. The council never would have acted within the terminus systems. They make that perfectly clear again and again and again in ME1. Cerberus was willing to work there. This is completely 100% consistant. I will admit that they could have explained that better.[/quote]

The Council themselves, no. But why is it that you think they created the Spectres in the first place? Did you even play ME1? Remember the scene where Shepard is inducted into the Spectres?

Ambassador Udina: "A Citadel Fleet could secure the entire region. Keep the geth from attacking any more of our colonies."

Turian Councilor: "Or it could trigger a war with the Terminus Systems! We won't be dragged into a galactic confrontation over a few dozen human colonies."

[snip]

Asari Councilor: "Ambassador! There is another solution. A way to stop Saren that does not require fleets or armies."

Obviously Spectres are able to operate in the Terminus Systems as you encounter one yourself on Illium. The Council wouldn't need to send their fleets in, but they could send you and give you just as much support or more as Cerberus could. Or are you suggesting that Cerberus is better funded and equiped than the Galactic Council?

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

I agree. So throw the whole idea of working with Cerberus out and just make Shepard continue serving with the Alliance. That it would've been unrealistic to allow the player the option of joining multiple organizations does not excuse forcing the player to join the terrorist organization.

[/quote]

Shepard mutinied in ME1. He proved that he will do whatever is required to defeat the Reapers. He knows the Collectors are abducting hundreds of thousands. He knows that the council will never work in the Terminous systems and that the alliance is unlikely to do much. He has a ship and crew with Cerberus and their full backing. To try to get those resources from other organizations would take months if not years. Sticking with TIM is completely believable with Shepards character.[/quote]

That Shepard would defy orders by stealing the Normandy from dock to pursue Saren does not automatically equate to Shepard willingly joining the terrorist organization that killed almost his entire squad on Akuze and performed horrible experiements on the only other survivor when both the Council and Alliance are valid alternate options. That's a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

Umm... the geth? Just sayin'. They were the OG Reaper servants from the first game and there's still plenty of those guys wandering around. It also would've made having a geth on your crew all the more conflictive. Not that I really think the concept of the Collectors was bad, although I do think more could've been done with them.

[/quote]

I'm going to assume you're just picking at his argument and you're not actually against a video game story introducing new villains. I agree that more should have been done with the Collectors.[/quote]

Yes. I'm just pointing out that it's inaccurate to say that there were no enemies from ME1 left and therefor a new enemy had to be introduced in the Collectors. I don't actually feel there was anything wrong with introducing the Collectors as the primary antagonists of ME2 although, again, I do feel that not enough was done with them.

[quote]Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

[quote]JKoopman wrote...

His last point I somewhat agree with and somewhat disagree with. Overall, I'm not terribly impressed. For someone who pretends to be so rational and likens Smudboy's arguments to "a sea manatee trying to cross-country ski", almost every single one of his counter points are poorly constructed or not thought through at all and are easily countered themselves. For someone who also tries to claim the high ground in regards to being open minded and criticizes Smudboy for being arrogant, much of his own video comes off sounding condescending.

Hopefully Part 2 will be better.

[/quote]

His points were perfectly cogent, although sometimes he overreached when he didn't have to. I think the thrust of his argument is that a) there were plausible explanations to most of smudboys "plot holes" and smudboy's premises were often completely out to lunch. I think he achieved that pretty well.
[/quote]

The constant use of condescending phrases like "Are you serious?" and "I can't be the only one who notices this." and his attempts to caricaturize Smudboy's arguments as akin to "sea manatees trying to cross-country ski", etc gave me an impression that he himself was more than a little arrogant. The only difference between him and Smudboy was that at least Smudboy wasn't criticizing others of being arrogant while hypocritically claiming that he himself was not.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 mars 2011 - 09:51 .

[Whatever42]

iakus wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

You haven't said how it isn't living within the rules. The log entries on the station explain what they did with a fair bit of techno-babble. Sure, it doesn't really explain it but neither does the codex entry on the quantum entanglement communicator. There are several fundemental problems with using quantum entanglement as FTL communication (not simply technical hurdles) that they don't even address. They just say they did it.

Space Opera usually works this way.

"In 2148, prospectors on Mars discovered remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization, the mysterious artifacts discovered revealed breakthrough technologies assisting humanity's expansion into the stars. The basis for the technology was a force that dominates space and time itself. We called it the greatest discovery in human history. The races across the galaxy called it... MASS EFFECT.[/b] "

It's been made clear that all advanced technology of every existing race has been based on "Prothean" technology.  We have seen little to nothing how this affects medicine, tissue preservation, or anything even remotely connected to anything I can think of that's connected to ressurection technology.

Thisis not to say that human medical technology has stagnated.  But what we have sen of futuristic medicine seems limited to more advanced gene therapies, longer lifespans, and more recently, the ability to produce viable biotics.  In fact, I don't even recall seeing any examples of large scale use of cybernetics in the game, aside from those of biotics to control their abilities.  Not that it couldn't exist, but we simply don't see them.  Anywhere.  Not before Shepard gets turned into this remorseless cybernetic killing machine.

Is it any wonder that, upon learning of the Lazarus Project, some people go "Where the frak did they pull that out of?"

I do not know much about quantum entanglement outside of science fiction novels.  But you have to admit, it plays a considerably less important part of ME 2 then the Cure for Death.  Honestly, I thought of it as little more than a more advanced comm buoy.  We were just seeing Shep's "reports" from TIM's office's perspective rather than the Normandy.

First, Cerberus is well known for its aggressive push against the boundaries of science. ME1 and ME2 is full of it. Heck, they are largely responsible for human biotics. Miranda's father has likely pushed genetic research to its limits. This is hardly out of no where.

Second, there may be more here. In the intro, we clearly saw Shepard being rebuilt cell by cell by nanobots. We have also seen complete rebuilds of human beings by Reaper technology. We also know that TIM has been exposed to Reaper technology in the past. I suspect there will be an aha moment here.

In fantasy/science fiction, we all know that not everything is revealed at once. We're only part of the way through the story. It's possible that these advances just came from aggressive Cerberus research - they have been doing crazy stuff - but we might be surprised too. Regardless, its hardly some yawning plot hole.

Now, how Shepard's body survived enough to be rebuilt... I might give you that one.

[Phaedon]

I love this guy.

88mphSlayer wrote...

i liked smudboy's arguments, he might've voiced it in a slightly "elitist" tone,

yep

but it was constructive criticism all around

Irony does not make for constructive criticism

and backed up by a lot more than most people would bother backing their arguments up with

Definitely not.

"Books, comics, etc, prove me wrong, so they are not cannon"


I don't see why everyone is trying to compete to the 'Let's defend Smudboy marathon. Had his analysis not have a mistake every 35 seconds, he would just be a random elitist poster with a mic, and there are plenty of those here. He deserves no attention, but unfortunately, you are almost force to pay some attention to him when he claims that anyone who doesn't agree with him is a moron for the 10th time.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mars 2011 - 09:41 .

[Cra5y Pineapple]

I agree with the counter-arguement.

People like Smudboy whine about ME2 waaaay too much and go into too much detail. I mean most movies had more plot holes than ME2. Say Back to the Future, the Flux Capacitor is just about "scientific jargon" as much as bring Shepard back to life is.

Also, the counter-argue guy had some brilliant points. Especially how Cerberus would get more funding if they got back Shepard.

Modifié par Cra5y Pineapple, 08 mars 2011 - 09:46 .

[Whatever42]

Koop, if sujbect is meat and tubes and is salvageable then they have the technology. I don't throw some corpse on the table and say its salvagable if I haven't the faintest clue of how I'm going to proceed. I addressed the believability of the technology in my post above.

We'll have to disagree on Shepard's character. I think even the most paragon Shep would refuse to work with Cerberus if it meant allowing hundreds-of-thousands to die. Yes, there is a Shepard that conceivable would throw away a ship and a crew to go beg one from the alliance but its also believable that there is a Shepard that wouldn't. That they wouldn't provide you the option isn't a plot hole, its simply not a choice they allow you to make. They wouldn't let my renegade go pirate either.

And, yes, the council did give you a ship to track down Saren and let you operate in the Terminus. And they let you operate in the Terminus in ME2. And they provided you the same support in both: nothing. What I meant was that the Council wouldn't go beyond that. Sorry for expressing myself poorly.

As to Shep opening up. He only did so once in ME1 and that was in the locker room scene. Shep doesn't get all weepy in front of his crew. You think he would go crying to a Cerberus pychologist? I agree that some tender moments would have deepened the drama and would have been nice. But stoic Shepard isn't completely unbelievable either.

I'm not going to defend ME2 to the death. Yes, the story would have been better with some personal moments with Shepard. Yes, the main story missions were weak. Yes, the pacing was off for me. The problem with the smudboy analysis is that there are believable explanations for almost every criticism he had. Smud expected a full explantion of every plot point in the game. Yes, it was a 22+ hour game but it was only a few hours of dialogue at best. Not every technology, not every plot turn is going to be fully explored.

[Legbiter]

So yeah, smudboy's video at least proved he's going to die a virgin. Plothole?

[Iakus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

First, Cerberus is well known for its aggressive push against the boundaries of science. ME1 and ME2 is full of it. Heck, they are largely responsible for human biotics. Miranda's father has likely pushed genetic research to its limits. This is hardly out of no where.

Second, there may be more here. In the intro, we clearly saw Shepard being rebuilt cell by cell by nanobots. We have also seen complete rebuilds of human beings by Reaper technology. We also know that TIM has been exposed to Reaper technology in the past. I suspect there will be an aha moment here.

In fantasy/science fiction, we all know that not everything is revealed at once. We're only part of the way through the story. It's possible that these advances just came from aggressive Cerberus research - they have been doing crazy stuff - but we might be surprised too. Regardless, its hardly some yawning plot hole.

Now, how Shepard's body survived enough to be rebuilt... I might give you that one.

Successes and bodycount aside, you'd still need a Mass Relay network's worth of distance to cross from "life expectancy of maybe 150 years and in utero gene therapy for nearsightedness" to "Dead for two years?  Throw enough money at that problem and it'll go away"

So yeah, I still call it out of nowhere.

Where have we seen complete rebuilds of humans in teh Mass Effect series?  Retribution?  That was clearly Reaper tech.  Not to mention something published after ME 2.  If there was evidence, speculation, heck even a line in-game that reaper tech was involved I'd...well, I'd be less annoyed, if not exactly pleased.

"Want to know what the frak is going on in the game?  Buy our other products!" is not a good way to run a business anyway.

Concerning not everything being revealed at once:  Yes I completely agree.  Although I must point out that the story is incomplete, it is in fact 2/3 done.  THe majority is in fact over and done with. 

In addition,one would expect the participants in such a mystery to be more "WTF?" about such things as death no longer being necessarilly permanent.  Given how un-remarked it goes, one would actually asssume this was a common event.  Or at least a commonly known one.  Yet this is clearly not the case.  Which begs the question "Why isn't this dwelled upon?"  It doesn't have to be a moral or religious thing.  It could be the physical process of restoring dead flesh.  The moral implications of cheating death.  Legal issues.  Inheritance, back pay. 

If this is something to be revealed later, why isn't it wondered about now?

Harbringer:  Join us, Shepard!  You are already halfway there!
Shepard  Huh?
Harbringer:  You are already largely Reaper.  Come, emrace your destiny!
Shepard:  Waitaminute.  I'm part Reaper? When did this happen?
Harbringer:  After your death, the Illusive Man used our technology to revive you
Shepard:  Hold on!  Back up a bit.  I died?  When did this happen?
Harbringer:  ::Sigh:  it was at the beginning of the last game.  The first Normandy blew up?  You were spaced?
Shepard:  Oh yeah.  That.  Wow, that's still a plot point?  I'd totally forgotten about it.

Modifié par iakus, 09 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[squee913]

wow, I was reading a lot of these and planning counter arguments... but you guys are doing a pretty good job for me! So I will just cover a few overall points. 

First, people are saying over and over, that the Laz Project had never been talked about before or any technology that would suggest it was possible, it is unbelievable. So.... people can't introduce new concepts in a story? I am quite sure no one had ever mentioned freezing people in carbonite in the first starwars, or any tech that would suggest it. The very idea was only introduced minutes before it happened. It's like you expect everything about anything to be explained in the first chapter. If it is explained in the first chapter, no mater how impossible it is, then it's fine. If not, then we can't believe it.

Also, I want o remind people that shepard did not die at he beginning of the story. He died in the middle. ME2 is to ME1 what Two Towers is to Fellowship of the ring. Saying Shep was revived at the begging of the story is like saying Gandalf  was revived at he begging of the story. 

Also, I have a question... Do you guys think it is harder to by the death and resurrection because of our preconceived notions of Death, and how final it is? Changing mass is not less impossible than bringing someone back to life. But we are told our whole lives that death is final. Maybe it is a physiological thing that we have trouble accepting it. 
What do you guys think?

P.S. (We needed a new villain for ME2 since all the old villains (Saren, Sovereign) were killed in ME1 and the Reapers are too far out in Dark Space to bother us yet so they needed an agent to affect their will upon the galaxy, hence the Collectors.
Umm... the geth? Just sayin'. They were the OG Reaper servants from the first game and there's still plenty of those guys wandering around. It also would've made having a geth on your crew all the more conflictive. )
I did mention that Anderson clearly states that the Geth are no more than hold out and not a real threat right? Just wanted to be sure.... 

Modifié par squee913, 09 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[Iakus]

squee913 wrote...


First, people are saying over and over, that the Laz Project had never been talked about before or any technology that would suggest it was possible, it is unbelievable. So.... people can't introduce new concepts in a story? I am quite sure no one had ever mentioned freezing people in carbonite in the first starwars, or any tech that would suggest it. The very idea was only introduced minutes before it happened. It's like you expect everything about anything to be explained in the first chapter. If it is explained in the first chapter, no mater how impossible it is, then it's fine. If not, then we can't believe it.

But if a new concept is introduced, it might be a good idea to introduce it.  The way it was done in ME 2 was a lot of vague handwaving and "it was really really expensive" by way of explanation.  Shepard was dead for two years and isn't even vaguely curious as to how he's alive again?

Also, I have a question... Do you guys think it is harder to by the death and resurrection because of our preconceived notions of Death, and how final it is? Changing mass is not less impossible than bringing someone back to life. But we are told our whole lives that death is final. Maybe it is a physiological thing that we have trouble accepting it. 
What do you guys think?

That is entirely possible.  "The only certainties are death and taxes" and all that.  Though I would have thought that would make it all the  more important to show exactly why and how such a thing can be.

  I would also remind you that scientific laws to change mass and the technology to do it are a cornerstone to the Mass Effect series.  Pretty much right out of the gate we're told "in this universe's reality, it can be done" with a pile of codex entries backing it up.  Cure for Death gets...Umm, well, it was really really expensive

[Epic777]

Epic777 wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Apparently, there's another YouTube user working on giving counter-arguments. Interesting so far.

This will end....badly

~sigh~

[Rekkampum]

Smudboy? Sounds like the antagonist of Super Mario Sunshine.

His points make about as much sense, too.

[Mir5]

Hey, the ignorant ones have degraded from calling critics trolls, into just calling them morons. GJ.
But I guess it comes from people who think that Marvel comics, Dan Brown and Twilight is good writing.

About Smudboy, I remember that vid being a bit too close to RedLetterMedia. He made few good points, few mistakes, missed few bigger plotholes (Reapers leaving a dead one behind with the keys to their base, and not chaning the locks). Generally quite a good vid.

"They are going to target earth!" (because they had less than million pods in a big room.) Thanks for reminding me of that sentence. Maybe I'll one day do a WW3 game where someone says "Oh my god, they are going to destroy France, we have to save France".

Modifié par Mir5, 09 mars 2011 - 08:38 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Shepard was dead for two years and isn't even vaguely curious as to how he's alive again?

That's good question, but based one assumptions.

Meaning dead and back to life. We know it, but does the others know it. Maybe they just assume that Shepards dead was wrong information. If you see someone who you expected to be dead by rumors, then would you assume that the person is raised from dead or that rumor was wrong. So, if you assume that rumor was wrong, then what there is to ask, expect. Hi, what you have done past 2 years, great to see you.

[Big I]

Ok, I like ME2 a lot, but I still think that smudboy's objections are reasonable. I found his analysis funny and pertinent, and watching them doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game. I find squee913's analysis to be the opposite.


Smudboy's analysis is presented with a core thesis, that being that 1) ME2 plot details are not adequately explained and inconsistent with ME1, and 2) Shepard's uniqueness is not sufficiently developed.  All his arguments are to prove this, and all of his arguments are sourced from in game material.


Squee913's analysis has no central argument, nor does he attack the basis of smudboy's objections. Most of the evidence for his arguments are sourced from real world examples, with little direct relevance to Shepard. I'm willing to buy that Joan of Arc was important to the history of France, but what I need to disagree with smudboy's conclusions is an analysis taken from in game evidence as to why Shepard is equally important to the history of Citadel Space; "Shepard's the main character" is not sufficient.


If you want to present a convincing argument against smudboy's videos, you have to address his core argument and attack that, not nitpick through each individual point.  You should argue that either a) ME2 plot inconsistency is less important than establishing the themes of ME2 ("dark second act", "dirty dozen", etc), or that the "inconsistencies" are smaller than they are portrayed.  Listing a dozen possible reasons for how Shepard's body survived re-entry, none of which are presented in game, does not convince.

[Annie_Dear]

Nashiktal wrote...

Killing shepherd off was the biggest "Big Lipped Alligator Moment" I was actually bothered by.

I wouldn't call it a "Big Lipped Alligator Moment". It did have something to do with the plot and people actually talked about it. Sure, it comes right out of nowhere, but to me, that's the point: It's supposed to catch you off-guard.

But I'll give you some points for the Nostalgia Critic reference!

[squee913]

iakus wrote...

squee913 wrote...


First, people are saying over and over, that the Laz Project had never been talked about before or any technology that would suggest it was possible, it is unbelievable. So.... people can't introduce new concepts in a story?...

But if a new concept is introduced, it might be a good idea to introduce it.  The way it was done in ME 2 was a lot of vague handwaving and "it was really really expensive" by way of explanation.  Shepard was dead for two years and isn't even vaguely curious as to how he's alive again?

Element Zero was explained with even less hand waving. "When mixed with electricity it creates a field that changes the mass of an object"  End of story. How this is possible is never remotely explored, because we have no clue. Sure, Shep might be curious as to how he was brought back, and then again he might not care. Depends on the kind of Shepard you are running. Is it so hard to believe that Shep would simply go, "I don't care how they did it. All that matters is they did it! Now I can go back to work!" As I've said before, I feel it would be really cool to explore how it affects him, but it is not really important to the story (Collectors and Reapers destroying the Galaxy) You don't see Sheridan from B5 saying, "Wait... how did you bring me back? I mean what are the details? did you use electricity to start my heart or something? NO no no, I don't care about why you brought me back, I want to know how you did it!!" 

    I would also remind you that scientific laws to change mass and the technology to do it are a cornerstone to the Mass Effect series.  Pretty much right out of the gate we're told "in this universe's reality, it can be done" with a pile of codex entries backing it up.  Cure for Death gets...Umm, well, it was really really expensive

The codex only talks about what element zero does, not how it does it. It has lots of codex entries because it is a difficult concept that needs to be explained. Bringing shep back to life is a simple concept. Would it really change anything if there had been a codex entry that says, "Shepard was brought back to life using the advanced methods and techniques of the Laz Project. This technique can work on any human and generally takes about two years to complete depending on the damage." Because that is all the entries about mass effect really do... explain the result, not the how.

[squee913]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Smudboy's analysis is presented with a core thesis, that being that 1) ME2 plot details are not adequately explained and inconsistent with ME1, and 2) Shepard's uniqueness is not sufficiently developed.  All his arguments are to prove this, and all of his arguments are sourced from in game material.

Squee913's analysis has no central argument, nor does he attack the basis of smudboy's objections.

I fail to understand how one refutes a thesis with out refuting the logic of the arguments that make up the thesis. I don't mind that he does not like the story. I disagree with the reasons he gives for it. So, I take a look at each argument and attempt to refute the logic behind it. In fact, many if not most of his arguments are not taking from in game material. Where in the game does it ever show us that Illusive man could have stopped the treat by making an army of mercenaries? Where does it tell us that Wilson is about to be rich and famous? Some of his arguments are even refuted by the game itself. He says they should have puts mines around the omega 4 relay, but the codex states that ships can drift millions of kilometers when jumping. Thus a mine field would do no good unless it was un-realistically huge. At one point he says that Reapers are giant NON-organic ships, when EDI clearly states that they are made up of organic and non-organic parts. 

Most of the evidence for his arguments are sourced from real world examples, with little direct relevance to Shepard. I'm willing to buy that Joan of Arc was important to the history of France, but what I need to disagree with smudboy's conclusions is an analysis taken from in game evidence as to why Shepard is equally important to the history of Citadel Space; "Shepard's the main character" is not sufficient.

TIM gives you the reasons. He was a hero, he is a symbol for the galaxy, and the Reapers fear/respect him. The argument is that these reasons are unrealistic. The real world examples show that not only are the realistic, but proven. One person can make a bigger difference than an entire army. As for the reasons I give that are not explained in the game, do you really think TIM would say all his reasons for doing it? Do you think that if it is not directly talked about in the game then it is impossible? So does this mean that TIM has not ulterior motives for anything he says? IF he did, the game surely would have told you....  

All of tha being said, I do understand your feelings. You felt his videos were more to the point and mine ramble more. I explained my overall points at the end of the counter examination, and that might help your opinion. Or not, not everyone will agree with me and that is not a bad thing. 

[Lumikki]

Let see, Cerberus is trying to stop thread agaist humans, because that is only thing they really care, survival of the humans. They resurrect Shepard, why not just hire someone else?

Can you name any other "person" who would be willing to work with Cerberus and is more capable or famous enough. Also person who would get others to work with him/her too, because so much trust what he/she can do. I mean we talk about only human Specter ever even existing in human race so far and has already broven to be hero. Also would Cerberus trust the job for non human leader?

If it's not Shepard, then all ME1 companions would be out too and hole story would have to be different. So, it was Shepard or totally new story what has nothing to do with Shepard in first game. Basicly made situation same as what happen with Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 mars 2011 - 02:28 .

[Whatever42]

I grant you not every plot point is fully explained or explored. Again, this is a video game. They don't have the time or space to do that. Heck, not even more movies or novels do that. Some things just aren't worth exploring and would just bore 90% of readers. But yet almost every popular work of fiction has a legion of people who run around pointing plot holes and accusing writers of being lazy or stupid like writers.

I find that most of the problem I have with these plot hole critics is summed up in a few points:

1) They say "I wouldn't do that" so to them its inconceivable that anyone would do that.The bad guy leaves footprints outside the window. Well, I would have made sure I brushed those out, that's a plot hole. Of course, bad guys do forgetful or stupid things all the time, just like the rest of us. You just have to watch any real life crime show to realize that.

Its like the Wilson thing again. I have met very smart people who's egos have driven them to do very stupid things. Yet for some plot hole critics because they wouldn't have done it, its inconcievable that Wilson could betrayed Cerberus. Even if the writer would have spent several minutes carefully examining Wilson's rationale (which would have bored everyone because no cares about Wilson), they still would call it a plot hole because they wouldn't have acted similarly.

TIM wanted a top convert team led by a legendary leader. Yet if a plot hole critic thinks hiring a thousand mercenaries is a better idea then its now a plot hole. If you try to argue the point, explaining how TIM thinks, then all you get is a dissertation about how a thousand mercenaries is better. Apparently everyone in the universe needs to think the same as the plot hole critic or its unbelievable.

2) They apply their analysis inconsistantly. In ME1, when frogger-Saren died and Sovereigns shields conveniently collapsed, few people seem to wonder why. How can an ancient machine with a legion of programs have such a fatal software flaw that causes it to faint when one of its controlled minions dies. You think that after millions of years, it would have noticed and corrected such poor code. That was a MAJOR plot point. But most people just brush it off - its space opera and fun so who cares.

Yet when Shepard dies and is brought back, several people seem to get twisted up into knots because there isn't huge explanation of the imaginary technology, just a cutscene with some nanobots and a few log entries with some technobabble. In ME1, Sovereign fainted conveniently at the culimination of the entire game after learning about unstoppable Reapers. In ME2, at the very start of the game, as a plot device, Shepard is killed and ressurected and now its totally unbelievable that humanity has advanced nano-technology that can repair a recently killed body that was put in stasis.

Heck, no one questions that we have stasis because, which is completely off-the-rails in science terms, but advanced nano-technology is apparently inconceivable.

3) Critics need to recognize that the goal of the writer is to craft an enjoyable story. If they leave out detail or background its often because its unimportant and would just slow down the story. I don't really care why Wilson betrayed Cerberus. Could TIM have taken other courses of action besides ressurecting Shepard? What were they? Why did he reject them? Who cares? Seriously, do you think 99% of players want to read an essay on this? Do you really think its worth the writing team's time to produce one?

There are a few moments in both ME1 and ME2 where I do scratch my head because I can't think of any way something could have happened. I really find it a little unbelievable that Sovereign's shields would drop after the death of frogger-Saren. That's a pretty huge flaw in the software that was overlooked for millions of years?  Or how could Shepard's body be intact enough to rebuild after hitting a planet? Or how could the Death Star have such an obvious flaw that could cause it to be completely destroyed with a couple torpedoes that the rebels could spot in mere minutes but the constructing engineers miss over several years?  Or how can the Shadows after millions of years of causing chaos suddenly decide to fly off out of the galaxy because of one fancy speech?

But the stories are fun so I overlook them. However, dwelling on how the machine that transfers life force between two people in B5... just because its not really explained doesn't make it a plot hole.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 09 mars 2011 - 02:25 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Its like the Wilson thing again. I have met very smart people who's egos have driven them to do very stupid things. Yet for some plot hole critics because they wouldn't have done it, its inconcievable that Wilson could betrayed Cerberus. Even if the writer would have spent several minutes carefully examining Wilson's rationale (which would have bored everyone because no cares about Wilson), they still would call it a plot hole because they wouldn't have acted similarly.

Seriously, uber complainments about the "Wilson thing" for example, is something that used to ****** me off. I mean, the character is completely irrelevant to the plot of ME2 or to the ME universe. His role was to just bring a challenge on the tutorial level, after that he wasn't mentioned anymore, no other role before Lazarus Project, no other importance to the continuity whatsoever. What's this character does of such importance that his motivations are so important to the plot? Sometimes bad guys are bad guys and in this case, what's the problem with it? This is guy is completely uninteresting, unimportante, irrelevant. Also, in the logs on the station we have some expositions of his unsatisfaction on the project. Nitpicking about things like that is what makes most of smudboy's analysis nitpicky to the point of being silly.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 09 mars 2011 - 02:54 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Seriously, uber complainments about the "Wilson thing" for example, is something that used to ****** me off. I mean, the character is completely irrelevant to the plot of ME2 or to the ME universe. His role was to just bring a challenge on the tutorial level, after that he wasn't mentioned anymore, no other role before Lazarus Project, no other importance to the continuity whatsoever. What's this character does of such importance that his motivations are so important to the plot? Sometimes bad guys are bad guys and in this case, what's the problem with it? This is guy is completely uninteresting, unimportante, irrelevant. Also, in the logs on the station we have some expositions of his unsatisfaction on the project. Nitpicking about things like that is what makes most of smudboy's analysis nitpicky to the point of being silly.

I think all the complaints against Wilson would not be there if it went like this.

Wilson: Through here, the shuttle bay is just beyond the next door!
[Door opens and Miranda is there]
Wilson: Miranda?! Wha [Gets shot]
Jacob: What the hell are you doing?!
Miranda: My job. Wilson was working for the shadow broker.

That would be one line to change, and would give a proper reason for Wilson to go postal. And yes, i'm quite aware LOTSB does exactly what I said, but would it be so hard to just add it in the main-game?

Modifié par Lizardviking, 09 mars 2011 - 03:53 .