Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
We know that Shepard was recovered intact because we saw it. We know that he was exposed to vaccuum because we're told. We see Shepard's dead tissue. We know that Shepard was seen falling toward the planet. We know that his helmet was found on the planet.
I would say that a reasonable conclusion was that he was found on the planet. I would say that an unreasonable conclusion was that he was saved by pixies.
However, Koop, now we have you adding in facts not in evidence. We have you saying that the body could not be found intact - which we have seen - because Shepard would have burned up. This is the same as saying he was saved by pixies. We have no evidence of him burning up.
I'm not saying that his body could not be found intact. I'm saying that no explanation is provided in the narrative for Shepard's body inexplicably being found intact. I'm not saying that Shepard's body
didn't survive intact. I'm saying that logically
it should not have. Without any data to suggest or explain otherwise, we can only assume that A should naturally lead into B and Shepard's body should've burned up on reentry. The fact that it apparently
did not is an inexplicable event forming a gap in the narrative, which is the very definition of a plothole. It leaves us with no other recourse but to assume that a [space] wizard did it.
I'm not against there being a possible explanation for these events. I'm arguing that, if there
is an explanation for them, then it needs to be explicitly
implied or
referrenced in the narrative, not
invented by the audience. The later is
bad writing. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp.
Lets assume that kinetic barriers are never referrenced or shown in use anywhere in ME. There's nothing at all to indicate to the audience that these shields exist in the ME universe. Now we're shown a scene where Shepard is shot in the head and it inexplicably does no damage; and his surival is never mentioned or explained throughout the rest of the game. This would naturally leave the audience wondering HOW IN THE HELL this is possible. According to the data available, he should be dead. He is not. This creates a logical disconnect in the narrative. It doesn't matter if some fan then comes along and suggests that "Well, maybe there are these mass effect-generating shields (let's call them 'kinetic barriers') that deflected the bullet away." Even if that's the
actual explanation that the author intends. Because if that's what we're meant to believe, then it needs to be implied or referrenced by the author. Now in ME1, kinetic barriers are first referrenced when Jenkins is shot dead by geth drones in the opening act and Kaidan states
"Ripped right through his shields. Never had a chance." Now we know of the existence of barriers, and Shepard getting shot in the face no longer causes a disconnect.
Where is the existence of suit-mounted air brakes referrenced or implied in ME2? If we're meant to believe/assume that Shepard's armor had some sort of air-braking system built into it that slowed his descent, that's fine. But we need to be told this, or shown it, or have it referrenced after the fact, or have some prior example of it's use or existence. Without that,
you are basically saying that he was saved by fairies, because both explanations have the same amount of credibility.
xboxlivegamer wrote...
HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
xboxlivegamer wrote...
Smudboy was an idiot. I disagree with him on almost all his points. He never once offered a point on how to make Mass Effect 2 a better game overall...
Yes, he should have done a series called Fixing Mass Effect or something.
You clearly didn't bother reading a single word passed that. Most of what he suggest as improvements were based on his own opinion and not something practical that would actually make the game better.
And what should he have based
his video on?
Your opinion? It's
his video. Of course his suggestions are going to be based on
his opinion.
Bamboozalist wrote...
HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
I disagree. I didn't like all of his ideas, but I thought some of them were clever and could have helped patch some of the more egregious plot holes, and were entirely practical (like making the beacons important and thus Shepard important because of his unique ability to understand Prothean.)
Shepard already was important, the entire squad was there for Shepard. One of the reasons I don't get too angry with the lack of banter and isolated party in ME2 is that they're never really supposed to be a crew, they're there for Shepard and their own personal reasons, yes Garrus and Tali + Jacob and Miranda are comrades but that's about it.
The entire squad was there for Shepard? Are you sure? Tali and Garrus maybe, but the rest of them?
Miranda? She's Cerberus. She goes
whereever and does
whatever TIM tells her to.
Jacob? Ditto. He goes where Miranda goes.
Mordin? He joined because he and Cerberus shared a common goal (stopping the Collectors).
Jack? She joined for the promise of acquiring Cerberus data, and because the Normandy was her only way off Pergatory.
Grunt? He joined out of a desire for a worthy enemy to fight.
Samara? She joined out of a promise to aid you if you got her the information she desired.
Thane? He joined out of a death wish and a desire for attonement.
Kasumi? She joined because she needed Cerberus' help retrieving her partner's greybox.
Zaeed? He's a mercenary. He joined because Cerberus paid him to.
Legion is the only new character who joins you in ME2 out of an actual attachment to Shepard. Now, as for the OLD characters who actually
would have joined
for Shepard...
Wrex? Can't. Too busy independently organizing the krogan.
Liara? Can't. Too busy seeking vengeance against the Shadow Broker.
Kaidan/Ashley? Can't. Too busy with their own mission and Shepard is a traitor anyway.
So Legion, Garrus and Tali. Three characters out of FIFTEEN. Clearly Shepard was the indespensible linchpin holding them all together...
Bamboozalist wrote...
HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...
It wasn't important at all in ME2.
WHY WOULD IT BE? Did you even play ME1? You already found the conduit, what purpose would the beacons serve now? To let you know how hard the Protheans got raped? You already got everything you could from the Protheans that could help you against the Reapers.
What is Shepard going to do? Go up to the council with the Beacon and tell them to use it and just trust him/her about what the vision means because he/she can speak Prothean?
Don't focus too much on the importance of the beacons. I think the real focus of smudboy's argument was the cipher. The only thing that trully sets Shepard apart from any other Alliance marine is the fact that he can not only understand the Prothean language, but understand their minds as well.
The beacons I can understand having no further relevance beyond ME1. But the Prothean cipher? Shepard's sole unique quality? No. Especially when it's revealed that the Collectors are Prothean. That's just a depressing waste of potential. I really liked smudboy's suggestion that Shepard could've had some sort of attachment to the Collector General where he's able to communicate or share thought on some basic level, perhaps tapping into some shred of unsubjugated spirit left in the General similar to how you could influence and pursuade Saren to redeem himself in ME1. This could've not only developed the character of the General far more than his current one-dimensional Reaper-proxy, but been a great opportunity to acquire valuable information on the Reapers' plans, their motivations, a potential means to stop then and created some real relevance for Shepard as well as been a nice nod to the previous game.
Modifié par JKoopman, 05 avril 2011 - 12:46 .
Retour en haut
